State of Tennessee v. Willie Hardy, Jr., M2016-01748-CCA-R3-CD

On Jan. 30, 2014, Ricardo Carter (victim) went to an Econolodge room to buy marijuana from Danielle Vineyard; when he entered, Willie Hardy stood behind the door, pointed a black-and-silver handgun at the victim, struck him, and the victim’s money, phone, and wallet were taken.
Surveillance images placed Hardy and Vineyard at the motel; police arrested both shortly thereafter and recovered a handgun, ammunition, motel receipts, phones, and cash (Hardy had about $565).
Vineyard testified that Hardy planned the robbery, stood behind the door, pointed the gun, and directed her to take the victim’s property; she received a plea deal (probation) in exchange for her testimony.
Hardy pleaded guilty pretrial to related counts (felon in possession, evading arrest, assault, resisting arrest) and proceeded to jury trial only on aggravated robbery; the jury convicted him.
Trial court imposed within-range terms for each conviction and ordered the felon-in-possession sentence consecutive to the aggravated robbery sentence, producing a 14-year effective sentence.
On appeal Hardy challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated robbery and (2) the length/consecutive nature of his sentence; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed convictions and sentence lengths but vacated consecutive sentencing and remanded for required Wilkerson findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hardy)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated robbery	Evidence showed Hardy pointed a handgun, struck victim, and property was taken — meets aggravated robbery elements	Victim was not placed in fear; facts insufficient to prove aggravated robbery	Conviction affirmed — pointing a deadly weapon and the theft by violence supported aggravated robbery under either violence or putting in fear theories (Jackson standard)
Consecutive sentencing (dangerous offender)	Trial court correctly found extensive criminal history and dangerous-offender status to justify consecutive term	Consecutive sentence excessive; trial court misapplied enhancement factors and failed to make required Wilkerson findings	Vacated consecutive sentencing and remanded for the trial court to make the additional Wilkerson findings (record inadequate for de novo review)

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Winters v. State, 137 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (applying Jackson standard)
Dorantes v. State, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (direct and circumstantial evidence standard)
Cabbage v. State, 571 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1978) (deference to jury credibility findings)
Allen v. State, 69 S.W.3d 181 (Tenn. 2002) (pointing a deadly weapon constitutes violence)
Bise v. State, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences; record requirements)
Pollard v. State, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (applying Bise to consecutive sentences; need for record establishing statutory grounds)
Wilkerson v. State, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (additional requirements when designating defendant a dangerous offender)
Imfeld v. State, 70 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2002) (discussion of Wilkerson requirements)
Adams v. State, 973 S.W.2d 224 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (single statutory ground suffices for consecutive sentences)