State of Tennessee v. James Allen Pollard, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1011

Pollard was convicted of felony murder, first-degree premeditated murder, and especially aggravated robbery; the felonies were merged and sentences imposed were life and 18 years, respectively.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed convictions but remanded for a proper determination of whether sentences should run consecutively or concurrently under Wilkerson.
This Court holds that the standard of appellate review for imposing consecutive sentences is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness when the trial court makes record findings.
Because the trial court failed to address Wilkerson’s two additional factors for dangerous-offender consecutive sentencing, the case must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
The court endorses the abuse-of-discretion standard for all sentencing decisions and reiterates Wilkerson’s two-prong requirement prior to dangerous-offender consecutive sentences.
Costs on appeal are taxed to the State.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for consecutive sentencing	State urges abuse of discretion with presumption of reasonableness	Pollard advocates de novo review with presumption of correctness	Abuse of discretion with presumption of reasonableness applies
Impact of Wilkerson on dangerous-offender consecutive sentences	Wilkerson factors may be bypassed on silent record	Wilkerson factors must be considered regardless	Wilkerson factors required; remand for proper Wilkerson analysis
Necessity of Wilkerson findings to support consecutiveness	A dangerous-offender finding alone supports consecutiveness	Two Wilkerson findings needed to justify consecutive sentencing	Two Wilkerson findings required; record must show reasonable relation and public protection need
Remand scope for Wilkerson factors	No remand needed if record silent	Remand appropriate to allow Wilkerson analysis	Remand to consider Wilkerson requirements
Overall approach to appellate review of sentencing	Adopt federal two-step reasonableness approach	Maintain Tennessee framework with abuse of discretion	Adopt abuse-of-discretion standard with presumption of reasonableness; Wilkerson applied on remand

State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (dangerous-offender findings require relation to offense severity and public protection)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for within-range sentencing decisions)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences; must articulate reasons)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (broader discretionary authority in sentencing decisions)
State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2002) (consecutive sentencing considerations under Wilkerson framework)
Lane v. State, 3 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 1999) ( Wilkerson lineage on reasonableness of aggregate sentences)
State v. Allen, 259 S.W.3d 671 (Tenn. 2008) (consecutive sentencing is a discretionary matter akin to how sentences are served)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (U.S. 2009) (multi-sentence imposition not tied to Sixth Amendment concerns)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (S. Ct. 2000) (applies jury findings to punishment increases beyond statutory maximum)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (S. Ct. 2004) (mandatory enhancements violate Sixth Amendment where not admitted or found by jury)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (S. Ct. 2005) (Guidelines departure framework and jury findings; Sixth Amendment concerns)
State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007) (Sixth Amendment concerns with 1989 Act enhancements)