State v. Tillman, 104 So. 3d 480

Tillman was convicted by jury on two counts of attempted manslaughter, one count of attempted second degree murder, and one count of resisting an officer with force or violence, with sentences to be served consecutively totaling 83 years.
The shooting occurred July 9, 2009 at 2526 Malcolm Street in Shreveport, beginning with a street fight involving Tillman’s group and the Bakers, then Tillman returned with a gun and shot multiple victims.
Vernesta Baker was struck from behind, shot in the ankle, and others (Cortavian Baker, Timothy Bell) were shot in the chest as Tillman pursued victims near and into a house while resisting an attempt to detain him.
A handgun and shell casings were recovered; Tillman was later detained in Texas after fleeing from the initial scene.
Defense argued lack of specific intent to kill, asserting Tillman acted to protect his brother or others, while the State argued overwhelming evidence of specific intent to kill and culpable conduct.
On appeal Tillman challenges sufficiency of the evidence for the second degree murder conviction and resisting arrest, and argues the aggregate sentence is constitutionally excessive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for second degree murder	Tillman lacked specific intent; no mortal wounds prove no intent to kill.	State failed to prove specific intent beyond reasonable doubt; testimony inconsistent.	Sufficient evidence supported specific intent to kill; rational juror could find intent beyond reasonable doubt.
Resisting an officer with force or violence	Tillman resisted détainment in defense of his brother; actions possibly justified.	Officer detained them; force used was justified in defense of others or necessity.	No justification; rational juror could find lack of justification for resisting arrest.
Excessive sentence under La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1	Maximum terms and consecutive sentencing were warranted by the offenses.	PSI denied; absence of mitigating information and youth undermined proportionality; consecutive sentences excessive.	Sentences within statutory limits; not grossly disproportionate; no abuse of discretion; affirmed.
Consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing for single course of conduct	Consecutive terms justified by the violence and multiple victims.	Consecutive sentences for closely related offenses from the same transaction were unwarranted.	Courts have discretion to impose consecutive sentences; here, record supported consecutive terms.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1979) (sufficiency review deference to jury; reasonable doubt standard)
State v. Williams, 448 So.2d 753 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1984) (credibility not reweighed on sufficiency review)
State v. Gullette, 975 So.2d 753 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2008) (one witness sufficiency when no internal contradiction)
State v. Burd, 921 So.2d 219 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2006) (credibility determinations are for the jury)
State v. Hutcherson, 785 So.2d 140 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2001) (specific intent to kill essential element of second degree murder)
State v. Lombard, 486 So.2d 106 (La. 1986) (mitigating factors in manslaughter and the role of heat of blood)
State v. Robinson, 754 So.2d 311 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2000) (standard for evaluating mitigating factors under Article 894.1)
State v. Landos, 419 So.2d 475 (La. 1982) (art. 894.1 articulation principle; record sufficiency)
State v. Johnson, 962 So.2d 1126 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2007) (consecutive sentencing discretion and justification)
State v. Derry, 516 So.2d 1284 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1987) (concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing framework)