State of Tennessee v. Wesley Howard Luthringer, M2016-00780-CCA-R3-CD

On Feb 24, 2014 a single-vehicle crash of a white Kia Sedona on Highway 82 killed two passengers (Ronald Neely Jr. and Donald Lazas III) and seriously injured the driver, later identified as Wesley Howard Luthringer. First responders smelled alcohol and found beer cans in/around the vehicle.
Crash reconstruction found no braking/skid marks, load-shift tire marks, a gouge in the shoulder, and tree strikes about 5–8 feet above ground; vehicle inspection revealed no mechanical defect contributing to the crash. The driver’s seatbelt was in use.
Luthringer’s blood-alcohol concentration tested 0.21 after receiving 500 mL IV saline (toxicologist noted saline could dilute BAC); certified judgments showed multiple prior DUI convictions.
The jury convicted Luthringer of two counts of vehicular homicide by intoxication and, in the aggravation phase, two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide (based on BAC ≥ 0.20 and prior DUI(s)).
At sentencing the court found extensive criminal history, lack of mitigation, and that Luthringer was a dangerous offender; two 24-year Range I sentences were imposed and ordered consecutive for an effective 48-year term (30% release eligibility).
On appeal Luthringer challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated vehicular homicide and (2) the imposition of consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict of aggravated vehicular homicide	State: evidence (driver identified in driver’s seat, odor of alcohol, BAC .21, prior DUI judgments, crash facts, victim autopsies) permits inference driver caused crash while intoxicated	Luthringer: evidence speculative, circumstantial, insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to State, rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt; convictions supported by direct and circumstantial evidence
Consecutive sentencing (two 24-year terms)	State: trial court properly considered sentencing factors, criminal history, dangerous-offender finding, public protection and Wilkerson requirements	Luthringer: sentences should not run consecutively because offenses arose from a common scheme; alternatively request reduction to statutory minimum	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; record supports extensive criminal history and dangerous-offender finding, Wilkerson requirements met, consecutive sentences reasonable

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (circumstantial evidence standard in Tennessee)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse of discretion review and presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (requirement that record reflect at least one statutory ground for consecutive sentencing)
State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (additional findings required when imposing consecutive sentences on dangerous-offender basis)
State v. Denton, 149 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2004) (addresses severance/evidentiary issues; not a basis to limit consecutive sentences)
State v. Crawford, 470 S.W.2d 610 (Tenn. 1971) (older circumstantial-evidence formulation superseded by later Tennessee precedent)