State of Tennessee v. Tondre Dupress Ragland, W2024-00535-CCA-R3-CD

Tondre Dupress Ragland was convicted by a Haywood County jury for attempted second-degree murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and aggravated assault, following a shooting involving Carolyn Bonds and Michael White over the return of Ragland’s car.
The trial court initially imposed consecutive sentences, classifying Ragland as a “dangerous offender,” for an effective 20-year sentence.
On his first appeal, convictions were affirmed, but the appellate court reversed the consecutive sentences and remanded for proper consideration of the Wilkerson factors for consecutive sentencing.
On remand, the trial court again imposed consecutive sentences, finding Ragland a dangerous offender, despite the lack of prior violent offenses or a prior criminal record.
On second appeal, the appellate court conducted a de novo review, questioning whether the trial court appropriately applied the Wilkerson factors to justify consecutive sentences.
The appellate court ultimately reversed the imposition of consecutive sentences and ordered all sentences to run concurrently for a total effective sentence of sixteen years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Imposition of Consecutive Sentences	Ragland is not a dangerous offender under statute and Wilkerson factors were not met	State argued trial court made proper findings and consecutive sentences are justified	Consecutive sentences not supported; sentences must run concurrently
Sufficiency of Trial Court Findings	Trial court failed to state specific, required factual findings for dangerous offender classification	Sentencing notes two victims, gunshots in populated area warrant consecutive sentences	Trial court failed to provide adequate Wilkerson analysis; de novo review required
Necessity to Protect Public	Ragland’s lack of prior criminal history and gainful employment mean there’s no need to protect public	Consecutive sentences necessary to protect society from Defendant’s conduct	Sixteen-year concurrent sentence adequate to protect public
Proportionality of Sentence	Concurrent sixteen-year term proportionate to offense seriousness	Twenty-year term reasonably relates to crimes committed	Sixteen years is no less than deserved; consecutive sentences not the least severe measure

State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (trial courts must make specific findings as to the severity of the offense and necessity of protecting the public before imposing consecutive sentences under the dangerous offender classification)
State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456 (Tenn. 1999) (reaffirmed Wilkerson requirements, emphasized subjectivity of dangerous offender status)
State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2002) (sentencing must be reasonably related to the severity of the offenses)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate standard of review in sentencing and remand procedure)