Consecutive Sentences

Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.

Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court

State v. Perry, No. W2019-01553-SC-R11-CD, p. 9-11 (Tenn. Dec. 9, 2022).

In recent years, this Court has examined criminal sentencing procedure in the wake of landmark decisions from the United States Supreme Court and corresponding legislative changes enacted by the Tennessee General Assembly. See generally State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 693–99 (Tenn. 2012); Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 856–62. We will not repeat in this opinion the comprehensive examinations in Bise and Pollard of the developments in caselaw and legislation. For purposes of this appeal, suffice it to say that one result of our prior examinations has been the clarification of the standard of review for sentencing decisions under the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, as amended (“the Sentencing Act”). In Bise, we addressed the principles governing appellate review of the trial court’s decision setting the length of sentence for an individual conviction. Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 684. We adopted “an abuse of discretion standard of review, granting a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” Id. at 707. We followed suit in Pollard with respect to the principles governing appellate review of the trial court’s decision to impose consecutive sentencing. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 853. Analogous to our holding in Bise, we announced that “the abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to consecutive sentencing determinations.” Id. at 860. In each instance, we recognized that “the trial court must be afforded broad discretion in its sentencing decisions.” Id. at 861. As we stated in Bise, “trial courts, ‘familiar with their locale and having seen the evidence and the defendant, as well as possessing the benefit of experience in sentencing matters, should retain that discretion necessary to achieve all of the purposes of the [Sentencing] Act.’” 380 S.W.3d at 709 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 237 (Tenn. 1986)).

However, we also noted in Bise that “appellate courts cannot properly review a sentence if the trial court fails to articulate in the record its reasons for imposing the sentence.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705–06 n.41 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e)). “[O]ur ruling in Bise specifically requires trial courts to articulate the reasons for the sentence in accordance with the purposes and principles of sentencing in order for the abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness to apply on appeal.” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 861 (citing Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698–99). In Pollard, we emphasized the following principle:

In the context of consecutive sentencing, the presumption of reasonableness applies similarly [to the reasoning in Bise], giving deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing as least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b).

Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 861; see also Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1) (stating that in ordering consecutive sentencing, the trial court “shall specify the reasons for this decision”).

Although we repeatedly have stressed the importance of placing findings on the record, we also have recognized that there is no requirement that the trial court’s reasoning be “particularly lengthy or detailed.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706. In Bise, we quoted with approval the United States Supreme Court’s guidance that the trial court simply must “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Id. (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356–57 (2007)). Of course, we also have remarked that, on a practical level, “less comprehensive findings may require appellate courts to more carefully review the record.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706. On appeal, the burden of showing that a sentence is improper is on the appealing party. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (Sentencing Commission Comments); see also State v. Dickson, 413 S.W.3d 735, 748 (Tenn. 2013).

As we stated above, in the context of consecutive sentencing, the Sentencing Act provides that as a prerequisite to imposing consecutive sentences under section 40-35-115, the trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant qualifies for consecutive sentencing under one of the classifications set forth in section 40-35-115(b).9 Only upon determining that the defendant meets the criteria for one of the classifications in section 40-35-115(b) does the trial court then choose whether, and to what degree, to impose consecutive sentencing based on the facts and circumstances of the case, bearing in mind the purposes and principles of sentencing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b). Our adoption of the abuse of discretion standard has not eliminated the requirements associated with section 40-35-115. See Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 863 (stating that the adoption of the abuse of discretion standard did not eliminate the requirements necessary to impose consecutive sentencing for the dangerous offender classification under section 40-35-115(b)(4)).

Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals

State v. Mondragon, No. W2023-00068-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 18, 2023).

State v. Murray, No. M2022-01525-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 27, 2023).

State v. Smith, No. M2022-01586-CCA-R3-CD, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 21, 2023).

The abuse of discretion standard adopted in Bise also applies to the imposition of consecutive sentences, “giving deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b).” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 861 (Tenn. 2013); see also Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1) (stating that the trial court, in ordering consecutive sentencing, “shall specify the reasons for this decision”). The trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that one of the statutory classifications for consecutive sentencing exists. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b).

State v. Phillips, No. E2022-01148-CCA-R3-CD, p. 12 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 7, 2023).

State v. Kirk, No. M2022-01334-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 3, 2023).

State v. Hite, No. W2022-00678-CCA-R3-CD, p. 29 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 19, 2023).

State v. Wiseman, No. W2022-00680-CCA-R3-CD, p. 12 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 5, 2023).

State v. Ragland, No.W2022-01303-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 12, 2023).

State v. Samson, No. M2022-00148-CCA-R3-CD, p. 50 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 3, 2023).

State v. Smith, No. M2022-00646-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 3, 2023).

State v. Johnson, No. E2022-00302-CCA-R3-CD, p. 24-25 (Tenn. Ct Crim. App. Mar. 20, 2023).

State v. Turner, No. W2022-00584-CCA-R3-CD, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 6, 2023).

State v. Crabtree, No. M2021-01154-CCA-R3-CD, p. 24 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 21, 2023).

In State v. Pollard, the Tennessee Supreme Court expanded its holding in Bise to trial courts’ decisions regarding consecutive sentencing. 432 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Tenn. 2013). “So long as a trial court properly articulates reasons for ordering consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the sentences will be presumed reasonable and, absent an abuse of discretion, upheld on appeal.” Id. at 862 (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1)).

State v. Duncan, No. E2022-00647-CCA-R3-CD, p. 11 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 17, 2023).

“[W]hen a defendant challenges the length of a sentence that falls within the applicable statutory range and reflects the purposes and principles of sentencing, the appropriate standard of appellate review is abuse of discretion accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness.” State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 321 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 706-07 (Tenn. 2012)). While trial courts need not comprehensively articulate their findings with regard to sentencing, “sentences should be upheld so long as the statutory purposes and principles, along with any applicable enhancement and mitigating factors, have been properly addressed [on the record].” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706. Our supreme court has also recognized that the Bise standard applies to the review of a trial court’s determination of consecutive sentencing as well. See State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013)…

State v. Greenman, No. M2021-01061-CCA-R3-CD, p. 22 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 27, 2022).

“[T]he abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to consecutive sentencing determinations.” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013). A trial court may order multiple offenses to be served consecutively if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant fits into at least one of the seven categories in Code section 40-35-115(b). This court must give “deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)[.]” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 861. When imposing consecutive sentences, the court must still consider the general sentencing principles that each sentence imposed shall be “justly deserved in relation to the seriousness of the offense,” “no greater than that deserved for the offense committed,” and “the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.” T.C.A. §§ 40-35-102(1), -103(2), -103(4); State v. Imfield, 70 S.W.3d 698, 708 (Tenn. 2002). “So long as a trial court properly articulates reasons for ordering consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the sentences will be presumed reasonable and, absent an abuse of discretion, upheld on appeal.” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 862 (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1); Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705).

State v. Stinnett, No. M2021-01266-CCA-R3-CD, p. 18 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 15, 2022).

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the same “the abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to consecutive sentencing determinations.” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013); see Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 708; State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). “[T]he presumption of reasonableness . . . giv[es] deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)[.]” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 861. “So long as a trial court properly articulates reasons for ordering consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the sentences will be presumed reasonable and, absent an abuse of discretion, upheld on appeal.” Id. at 862 (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1); Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705). When imposing consecutive sentences, the court must still consider the general sentencing principles that each sentence imposed shall be “justly deserved in relation to the seriousness of the offense,” “no greater than that deserved for the offense committed,” and “the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.” Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102(1), -103(2), -103(4); State v. Imfield, 70 S.W.3d 698, 708 (Tenn. 2002).

State v. Berg, No. M2022-00233-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5-6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 29, 2022).

When a defendant challenges the length or manner of service of a within-range sentence, this Court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court abuses its discretion in sentencing when it “applie[s] an incorrect legal standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the party complaining.” State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn. 1997) (citing Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Tenn. 1996)). If a trial court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant fits into at least one of the seven categories in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b), it may order multiple offenses to be served consecutively. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b). This Court must give “deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b).” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 861 (Tenn. 2013). As relevant here, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b) provides that a trial court may, in its discretion, order sentences to run consecutively if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(5) The defendant is convicted of two (2) or more statutory offenses involving sexual abuse of a minor with consideration of the aggravating circumstances arising from the relationship between the defendant and victim or victims, the time span of defendant’s undetected sexual activity, the nature and scope of the sexual acts and the extent of the residual, physical and mental damage to the victim or victims[.]

Tenn. Code Ann. §40-35-115(b)(5). The imposition of consecutive sentencing is subject to the general sentencing principles that the overall sentence imposed “should be no greater than that deserved for the offense committed” and that it “should be the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(2) & (4); State v. Nance, 393 S.W.3d 212, 234-35 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).

State v. Blackwell, No. M2020-01171-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2022).

“So long as a trial court properly articulates reasons for ordering consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the sentences will be presumed reasonable and, absent an abuse of discretion, upheld on appeal.” Id. (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1)).

State v. Pruitt, No. E2021-01118-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 2, 2022).

This court reviews challenges to the length of a sentence within the appropriate sentence range “under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court must consider any evidence received at the trial and sentencing hearing, the presentence report, the principles of sentencing, counsel’s arguments as to sentencing alternatives, the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct, any mitigating or statutory enhancement factors, statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee, any statement that the defendant made on his own behalf, and the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991) (citing T.C.A. §§ 40-35-103, -210; State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 236 (Tenn. 1986); State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)); see T.C.A. § 40-35-102 (2018).

The abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard also applies to the imposition of consecutive sentences. State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Tenn. 2013). A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to impose consecutive service. Id. A trial court may impose consecutive sentencing if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that one criterion is satisfied in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35- 115(b)(1)-(7) (2019). In determining whether to impose consecutive sentences, though, a trial court must ensure the sentence is “no greater than that deserved for the offense committed” and is “the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(2), (4) (2019); see State v. Desirey, 909 S.W.2d 20, 33 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

State v. Bohanan, No. W2021-00242-CCA-R3-CD, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July26, 2022).

This Court must give “deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b).” Id. at 861.

State v. Tice, No. M2021-00495-CCA-R3-CD, p. 76 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 18, 2022).

In Pollard, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that “the abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to consecutive sentencing determinations.” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013); see Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 708; State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). The court explained that “the presumption of reasonableness . . . giv[es] deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)[.]” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 861. “So long as a trial court properly articulates reasons for ordering consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the sentences will be presumed reasonable and, absent an abuse of discretion, upheld on appeal.” Id. at 862 (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1); Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705). When imposing consecutive sentences, the court must still consider the general sentencing principles that each sentence imposed shall be “justly deserved in relation to the seriousness of the offense,” “no greater than that deserved for the offense committed,” and “the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.” Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102(1), -103(2), -103(4); State v. Imfield, 70 S.W.3d 698, 708 (Tenn. 2002).

State v. McCulloch, No. E2021-00404-CCA-R3-CD, p. 28-29 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 29, 2022).

When an accused challenges the length, range, or manner of service of a sentence, this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing determination under an abuse of discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012); see also State v. Joseph Cordell Brewer, III, No. W2014-01347-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 4060103, at *7-8 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 1, 2015) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to trial court’s determination of range classification). This standard of review also applies to consecutive sentencing determinations. State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860-61 (Tenn. 2013).

This court will uphold the trial court’s sentencing decision “so long as it is within the appropriate range and the record demonstrates that the sentence is otherwise in compliance with the purposes and principles listed by statute.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709-10. Moreover, under such circumstances, appellate courts may not disturb the sentence even if we had preferred a different result. See State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008). The burden of showing that a sentence is improper is upon the appealing party. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.; see also State v. Arnett, 49 S.W.3d 250, 257 (Tenn. 2001).

State v. Dawson, No. E2021-00313-CCA-R3-CD, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 21, 2022).

When an accused challenges the length and manner of service of a sentence, this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing determination under an abuse of discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). This standard of review also applies to consecutive sentencing determinations. State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860-61 (Tenn. 2013).

A presumption of reasonableness standard gives “deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b).” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 861. “Any one of [the] grounds [listed in section 40-35-115(b)] is a sufficient basis for the imposition of consecutive sentences.” Id. at 862 (citing State v. Dickson, 413 S.W.3d 735 (Tenn. 2013)).

The imposition of consecutive sentencing is subject to the general sentencing principles that the overall sentence imposed “should be no greater than that deserved for the offense committed” and that it “should be the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(2), (4). Further, “[s]o long as a trial court properly articulates reasons for ordering consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the sentences will be presumed reasonable and, absent an abuse of discretion, upheld on appeal.” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 862 (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1)) (“The order [for consecutive sentences] shall specify the reasons for this decision and is reviewable on appeal.”); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705. The burden of showing that a sentence is improper is upon the appealing party. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.; see also State v. Arnett, 49 S.W.3d 250, 257 (Tenn. 2001).

State of Tennessee v. Coons, No. M2021-00202-CCA-R3-CD, p. 17 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 3, 2022).

In State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013), the Tennessee Supreme Court expanded its holding in Bise to also apply to decisions by trial courts regarding consecutive sentencing. Id. at 859. This Court must give “deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated  section 40-35-115(b).” Id. at 861. “Any one of [the] grounds [listed in section 40-35- 115(b)] is a sufficient basis for the imposition of consecutive sentences.” Id. at 862 (citing State v. Dickson, 413 S.W.3d 735 (Tenn. 2013)).

State of Tennessee v, Ciaramitaro, No. W2021-00046-CCA-R3-CD, p. 16 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 9, 2022).

Where a defendant is convicted of one or more offenses, the trial court has discretion in determining whether the sentences shall be served concurrently or consecutively. T.C.A. § 40-35-115(a). “[T]he abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to consecutive sentencing determinations.” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013).  … “So long as a trial court properly articulates reasons for ordering consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the sentences will be presumed reasonable and, absent an abuse of discretion, upheld on appeal.” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 862 (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1); Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705).

State of Tennessee v Lemons, No. W2020-01613-CCA-R3-CD, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 5, 2022).

However, in order to impose consecutive sentencing based upon finding that a defendant is a dangerous offender, a court must also find the so-called “Wilkerson factors,” namely that “(1) the sentences are necessary in order to protect the public from further misconduct by the defendant and [that] (2) ‘the terms are reasonably related to the severity of the offenses.’” State v. Moore, 942 S.W.2d 570, 574 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (quoting State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 938 (Tenn. 1995)); see also State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456, 461 (Tenn. 1999). “Where . . . the trial court fails to provide adequate reasons on the record for imposing consecutive sentences, the appellate court should neither presume that the consecutive sentences are reasonable nor defer to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority” and can either conduct a de novo review to determine if an adequate basis exists for consecutive sentences or remand the case to the trial court for consideration of the requisite Wilkerson factors. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 864- 65. Here, the State concedes that the trial court failed to make any specific findings regarding the Wilkerson factors. Therefore, we will review the imposition of consecutive sentencing de novo.

State of Tennessee v. Gonzalez-Martinez, No. E2021-00322-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9 (Ct.  Crim. App. May 2, 2022).

The standard of review adopted in [State v.]Bise[, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012]. “applies similarly” to the imposition of consecutive sentences, “giving deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b).” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 861 (Tenn. 2013).

State of Tennessee v. Benitez, No. M2021-00073-CCA-R3-CD, p. 30 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 27, 2022).

When the record establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range that reflects a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).

State of Tennessee v. Miller, No. M2020-01393-CCA-R3-CD, p. 13-14 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. 2022).

An abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard applies to the imposition of consecutive sentences. State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Tenn. 2013). A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to impose consecutive service. Id. A trial court may impose consecutive sentencing if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that one criterion is satisfied in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35- 115(b)(1)-(7) (2019). In determining whether to impose consecutive sentences, though, a trial court must ensure the sentence is “no greater than that deserved for the offense committed” and is “the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(2), (4) (2019); see State v. Desirey, 909 S.W.2d 20, 33 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

State of Tennessee v. Donaldson, No. E2020-01561-CCA-R3-CD, p. 42 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 21, 2022).

The standard of review adopted in [State v. Bise [,380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012),] “applies similarly” to the imposition of consecutive sentences, “giving deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b).” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 861 (Tenn. 2013). In State v. Wilkerson, the supreme court held that the trial court must find that consecutive sentences are reasonably related to the severity of the offenses committed and are necessary to protect the public from further criminal conduct before utilizing the “dangerous offender” category to impose consecutive sentencing, see State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 937-39 (Tenn. 1995), and “[t]he adoption of the abuse of discretion standard with the presumption of reasonableness has not eliminated this requirement,” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 863.

State of Tennessee v. Bird, No. M2021-00372-CCA-R3-CD, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2022).

This court reviews challenges to the length of a sentence within the appropriate sentence range “under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court must consider any evidence received at the trial and sentencing hearing, the presentence report, the principles of sentencing, counsel’s arguments as to sentencing alternatives, the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct, any mitigating or statutory enhancement factors, statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee, any statement that the defendant made on his own behalf, the potential for rehabilitation or treatment, and the result of the validated risk and needs assessment. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-103 (2019), -210 (2019); State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991); State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 236 (Tenn. 1986); State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)); see T.C.A. § 40-35-102 (2019).

An abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard applies to the imposition of consecutive sentences. State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Tenn. 2013). A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to impose consecutive service. Id. A trial court may impose consecutive sentencing if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that one criterion is satisfied in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35- 115(b)(1)-(7) (2019). In determining whether to impose consecutive sentences, though, a trial court must ensure the sentence is “no greater than that deserved for the offense committed” and is “the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(2), (4) (2019); see State v. Desirey, 909 S.W.2d 20, 33 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

State of Tennessee v. Himes, No. M2020-00407-CCA-R3-CD, p. 13 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr, 12, 2022).

This court reviews the length, range, and manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); see also State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Tenn. 2013) (applying the standard to consecutive sentencing); State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012) (applying the standard to alternative sentencing).

State v. Ledbetter, No. W2021-00140-CCA-R3-CD, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 2022).

We review the trial court’s consecutive sentencing determinations for an abuse of discretion, with a presumption of reasonableness afforded to the trial court’s decision. State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013); State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707- 08 (Tenn. 2012).

State v. Elrod, No. E2021-00622-CCA-R3-CD, p. 15 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 28, 2022).

If a trial court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant fits into at least one of the seven categories in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b), it may order multiple offenses to be served consecutively. T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b). This Court must give “deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b).” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 861 (Tenn. 2013).

State of Tennessee v. Borden, No. W2021-00305-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 22, 2022).

When the record establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range that reflects a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 707. A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).

State of Tennessee v. Lillard, No. M2020-01569-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 4, 2022) (partial consecutive sentences affirmed).

When  an  accused  challenges  the  length  and  manner  of  service  of  a  sentence,  this Court  reviews  the  trial  court’s  sentencing  determination  under  an  abuse  of  discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness.   State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707  (Tenn.  2012).   If a trial court misapplies an enhancement or  mitigating  factor  in  passing sentence, said error will not remove the presumption of reasonableness from its sentencing determination.    Bise, 380  S.W.3d  at  709.   This  Court  will  uphold  the  trial  court’s  sentencing decision “so long as it is within the appropriate range and the record demonstrates that the sentence is otherwise in compliance with the purposes and principles listed by statute.”   Id. at  709-10.   Moreover,  under  such  circumstances,  appellate  courts  may  not  disturb  the sentence even if we had preferred a different result.   See State v.  Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn.  2008).   The  party  challenging  the  sentence  imposed  by  the  trial  court  has  the burden  of  establishing  that  the  sentence  is  erroneous.    Tenn.  Code  Ann.  §  40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.;  State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991).

State of Tennessee v. Malone, No.  W2020-00364-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 24, 2022).

When  reviewing  a  trial  court’s  imposition  of  consecutive  sentences,  a  “ presumption of  reasonableness  applies,”  which  gives  “deference  to  the  trial  court’s  exercise  of  its discretionary  authority  to  impose  consecutive  sentences  if  it  has  provided  reasons  on  the record  establishing  at  least  one  of  the  seven  grounds  listed  in  Tennessee  Code  Annotated section 40-35-115(b).”   State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 861 (Tenn. 2013).  “Any one of [the]  grounds  [listed  in  section  40-35-115(b)]  is  a  sufficient  basis  for  the  imposition  of consecutive sentences.”   Id. at 862 (citing  State v. Dickson, 413 S.W.3d 735 (Tenn. 2013)).

The  imposition  of  consecutive  sentencing  is  subject  to  the  general  sentencing principles  that  the  overall  sentence  imposed  “should  be  no  greater  than  that  deserved  for the offense committed” and that it “should be the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed[.]”   Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(2),  (4). Further,  “[s]o  long  as  a  trial  court  properly  articulates  reasons  for  ordering  consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the sentences will be presumed  reasonable  and,  absent  an  abuse  of discretion,  upheld  on  appeal.”   Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 862 (citing  Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1)) (“The order [for consecutive sentences] shall specify the reasons for this decision and is reviewable on appeal.”);  see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705.

State of Tennessee v. Whitaker, No. E2021-00456-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 10, 2022).

When an accused challenges the length of a sentence, this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing determinations under an abuse of discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). “This abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to within-range sentences that reflect a decision based upon the purposes and principles of sentencing.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278 (Tenn. 2012). See also State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 859-60 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of appellate review for consecutive sentencing is abuse of discretion accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness). A finding of abuse of discretion indicates the “trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court has not abused its discretion unless “the record [is] void of any substantial evidence that would support the trial court’s decision.” Id.

In making sentencing decisions, trial courts must consider the following: (1) the evidence received at trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) the presentence report; (3) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature and characteristics of the conduct involved; (5) evidence and information offered by the parties regarding the statutory mitigation and enhancement factors set out in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-113 and 40-35-114; (6) any statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee; (7) any statement the defendant wishes to make on his own behalf; and (8) the result of the validated risk and needs assessment conducted by the department and contained in the presentence report. See T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b).

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b) sets forth the criteria the court shall consider in ordering sentences to run consecutively or concurrently:

(b) The court may order sentences to run consecutively if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(4) The defendant is a dangerous offender whose behavior indicates little or no regard for human life and no hesitation about committing a crime in which the risk to human life is high;

T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b)(4). See also Gray v. State, 538 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tenn. 1976). A defendant may be classified as a dangerous offender if the crimes for which he is convicted indicate that he has little or no regard for human life and no hesitation about committing a crime in which the risk to human life is high. Id. See also T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b)(4). The decision to impose consecutive sentences when crimes inherently dangerous are involved should be based upon the presence of aggravating circumstances and not merely on the fact that two or more dangerous crimes were committed. Id. To impose consecutive sentencing based on a finding that the defendant is a dangerous offender, the court must also find that “an extended sentence is necessary to protect against further criminal conduct by the defendant and that the consecutive sentences must reasonably relate to the severity of the offenses committed.” State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 939 (Tenn. 1995). The trial court must also make specific findings about “particular facts” that support the Wilkerson factors. State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456, 461 (Tenn. 1999) (citing Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d at 939). So long as the trial court properly articulates reasons for ordering consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the sentences will be presumed reasonable and, absent an abuse of discretion, upheld on appeal. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 862.

State of Tennessee v. Arnold,  No. E2020-00383-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 9, 2022).

Our supreme court has adopted an abuse of discretion standard of review for sentencing and has prescribed “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The application of the purposes and principles of sentencing involves a consideration of “[t]he potential or lack of potential for the rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant . . . in determining the sentence alternative or length of a term to be imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(5). Trial courts are “required under the 2005 amendments to ‘place on the record, either orally or in writing, what enhancement or mitigating factors were considered, if any, as well as the reasons for the sentence, in order to ensure fair and consistent sentencing.’” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698- 99 (quoting T.C.A. § 40-35-210(e)). Under the holding in Bise, “[a] sentence should be upheld so long as it is within the appropriate range and the record demonstrates that the sentence is otherwise in compliance with the purposes and principles listed by statute.” Id. at 709.

The standard of review adopted in Bise “applies similarly” to the imposition of consecutive sentences, “giving deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b).” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 861 (Tenn. 2013). In State v. Wilkerson, the supreme court held that the trial court must find that consecutive sentences are reasonably related to the severity of the offenses committed and are necessary to protect the public from further criminal conduct before utilizing the “dangerous offender” category to impose consecutive sentencing, see State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 937-39 (Tenn. 1995), and “[t]he adoption of the abuse of discretion standard with the presumption of reasonableness has not eliminated this requirement,” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 863.

State of Tennessee v. Presley, No. E2020-01249-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Cr. App. Feb. 2, 2022).

In Pollard, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that “the abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to consecutive sentencing determinations.” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013); see State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). The court explained that “the presumption of reasonableness . . . giv[es] deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)[.]” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 861. It reiterated that “[a]ny one of these grounds is a sufficient basis for the imposition of consecutive sentences.” Id. at 862 (citing State v. Dickson, 413 S.W.3d 735, 748 (Tenn. 2013)). “So long as a trial court properly articulates reasons for ordering consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the sentences will be presumed reasonable and, absent an abuse of discretion, upheld on appeal.” Id. (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1); Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705). When imposing consecutive sentences, the court must still consider the general sentencing principles that each sentence imposed shall be “justly deserved in relation to the seriousness of the offense,” “no greater than that deserved for the offense committed,” and “the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.” Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35- 102(1), -103(2), -103(4); State v. Imfield, 70 S.W.3d 698, 708 (Tenn. 2002).