State of Tennessee v. Kevin Anthony Dickson, Jr.
413 S.W.3d 735
| Tenn. | 2013Background
- In Jan. 2008 Dickson bought drugs from occupants of a cabin; believing the cocaine was fake, he armed himself, bought ammunition, and recruited Ramirez and Davis to accompany him.
- Dickson provided a loaded .45 to Ramirez, carried a baton and brass knuckles, forced entry into the cabin, and demanded money/drugs; Ramirez shot two unarmed victims (Hardin and C. Lyons), who survived with serious injuries.
- Dickson admitted planning the confrontation, procuring ammunition, and giving the gun to Ramirez; he also made statements expressing intent to use deadly force if alone.
- A bench trial convicted Dickson of two counts of attempted first-degree murder, among other offenses; trial court imposed consecutive 25-year sentences for each attempted first-degree murder.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed one attempted first-degree murder conviction (C. Lyons), reduced the other (Hardin) to attempted second-degree murder, and affirmed consecutive sentencing; Tennessee Supreme Court granted review.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the reduction, affirming both attempted first-degree murder convictions and the consecutive sentences, holding Dickson criminally responsible for Ramirez’s acts and that Ramirez acted with a substantial step and premeditation.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Dickson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dickson is criminally responsible for Ramirez’s shootings under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-402(2) | Dickson solicited, directed, armed, and benefited from Ramirez’s involvement; natural and probable consequence of the armed home invasion was the shootings | Dickson denied intending shootings; claimed guns were for protection and not part of a plan to kill | Held: Yes — sufficient evidence Dickson solicited/armed Ramirez and was criminally responsible |
| Whether Ramirez took a "substantial step" and thus committed attempted murder | Ramirez accepted a loaded gun, went to the scene, and fired at unarmed victims — actions corroborate intent and are a substantial step | N/A (challenge focused on sufficiency) | Held: Yes — possession/use of loaded gun and shooting constituted a substantial step toward attempted murder |
| Whether Ramirez acted with premeditation in shooting Hardin and C. Lyons | Premeditation inferable: weapon procurement, use of deadly force on unarmed victims, and in C. Lyons’s case, pausing/aiming at a fleeing victim; for Hardin, arming before arrival supports planning | Argued shootings were not premeditated (esp. Hardin shot almost immediately) and thus insufficient for attempted first-degree murder | Held: Yes — sufficient circumstantial evidence supports premeditation as to both victims; Court reverses CCA reduction and affirms both attempted first-degree murder convictions |
| Whether consecutive 25-year sentences for the two attempted first-degree murder convictions were proper | Consecutive sentences appropriate because Dickson had an extensive criminal record and was a dangerous offender; prior convictions and possession of brass knuckles showed pattern | Dickson argued youth and rehabilitative prospects; contended consecutive sentences excessive | Held: Yes — trial court did not abuse discretion; consecutive sentences justified by extensive criminal activity and danger to the public |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
- Bland v. State, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (factors from which premeditation may be inferred)
- State v. Reeves, 916 S.W.2d 909 (Tenn. 1996) (possession of materials near scene can be a substantial step)
- State v. Kimbrough, 924 S.W.2d 888 (Tenn. 1996) (attempted felony murder not a cognizable offense)
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review for sentencing)
- State v. Carson, 950 S.W.2d 951 (Tenn. 1997) (definition and requirements for criminal responsibility)