State of Tennessee v. Yangreek Tut Wal, M2016-01672-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Yangreek Tut Wal pleaded guilty to two counts each of especially aggravated kidnapping and especially aggravated robbery; aggravated rape charges were dismissed per plea.
Plea facts: on March 17, 2012, defendant and co-defendants abducted two victims at knifepoint, stabbed and beat them, forced them to perform sexual acts, drove to an ATM to withdraw victims’ funds, and left victims naked outside.
Defendant fled to Nebraska, was arrested, admitted involvement, and identified co-participants but minimized one co-defendant’s role; later testified inconsistently at that co-defendant’s trial.
At sentencing the State sought consecutive sentences as a dangerous offender based on cruelty, severity of injuries, leadership role, prior false statements, and untruthful trial testimony.
Trial court imposed 20 years for each conviction (mid-range), ordered the two kidnapping terms concurrent, the two robbery terms concurrent, and the aggregate kidnapping and robbery terms consecutive — 40 years total to be served at 100%.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 40-year effective sentence is excessive	Sentence warranted given severity, cruelty, injuries, defendant’s role, and false/untruthful statements; consecutive sentences appropriate under dangerous offender ground	Sentence excessive relative to co-defendants; court erred in finding dangerous offender without required statutory findings	Affirmed: mid-range sentences and partial consecutives upheld; record supports findings and reasoning
Whether trial court properly found defendant a "dangerous offender" for consecutive sentencing	Finding supported by facts showing little regard for human life, severe violence, and need to protect public; court made requisite Wilkerson findings	Claimed court failed to make statutory Wilkerson conclusions to justify consecutive sentences	Affirmed: trial court made the required statutory findings and both Wilkerson requirements (relation to severity and necessity to protect public)
Whether disparity from co-defendants’ lighter sentences renders defendant’s sentence improper	Disparity is not dispositive; sentencing is individualized based on enhancement/mitigating factors	Argued sentence disproportionate compared to co-defendants’ 30-year terms	Affirmed: sentencing within statutory ranges and record shows individualized consideration; disparity not unjustified

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences that reflect proper application of sentencing purposes and principles)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (Bise standard applies to consecutive sentences when trial court states reasons tied to statutory grounds)
State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (when using dangerous offender ground for consecutive sentences, court must also find relation to severity and necessity to protect public)
State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2002) (discusses Wilkerson requirements and consecutive sentencing review)
State v. Gosnell, 62 S.W.3d 740 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (each defendant must be sentenced individually based on applicable enhancement/mitigating factors)
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (affirmed greater sentence than co-defendants where trial court placed reasons on record and sentence was within statutory range)