State of Tennessee v. Willie Hardy, Jr. - concurring in part, dissenting in part

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

State of Tennessee v. Willie Hardy, Jr. - concurring in part, dissenting in part

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

DecidedJuly 13, 2017

DocketM2016-01748-CCA-R3-CD

StatusPublished

This text of State of Tennessee v. Willie Hardy, Jr. - concurring in part, dissenting in part (State of Tennessee v. Willie Hardy, Jr. - concurring in part, dissenting in part) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of Tennessee v. Willie Hardy, Jr. - concurring in part, dissenting in part, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

07/13/2017 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 19, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIE HARDY, JR.

Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 41400478 ___________________________________

No. M2016-01748-CCA-R3-CD ___________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated robbery and that the record supports the length of the Defendant’s within-range sentences. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion regarding the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences.

I agree that the trial court failed to make the requisite findings provided in State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 937-39 (Tenn. 1995), in concluding that the Defendant is a “dangerous offender” pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)(4). However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the Defendant’s criminal history did not support a finding that his “record of criminal activity is extensive” pursuant to section 40-35-114(b)(2). The record reflects that the Defendant has three prior felony convictions in Illinois for aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude police and was convicted of violating the terms of his probation on two prior occasions. According to the presentence report, the Defendant admitted to smoking marijuana daily since the age of thirteen. See State v. Koffman, 207 S.W.3d 309, 324 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006) (holding that “an extensive record of criminal activity may include criminal behavior which does not result in a conviction”). Based on the deference that this court must give to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences, I cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the Defendant had an extensive record of criminal activity and in imposing consecutive sentences. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgments of the trial court.

_________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

07/13/2017 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 19, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIE HARDY, JR.

Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 41400478 ___________________________________

No. M2016-01748-CCA-R3-CD ___________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated robbery and that the record supports the length of the Defendant’s within-range sentences. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion regarding the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences.

I agree that the trial court failed to make the requisite findings provided in State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 937-39 (Tenn. 1995), in concluding that the Defendant is a “dangerous offender” pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)(4). However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the Defendant’s criminal history did not support a finding that his “record of criminal activity is extensive” pursuant to section 40-35-114(b)(2). The record reflects that the Defendant has three prior felony convictions in Illinois for aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude police and was convicted of violating the terms of his probation on two prior occasions. According to the presentence report, the Defendant admitted to smoking marijuana daily since the age of thirteen. See State v. Koffman, 207 S.W.3d 309, 324 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006) (holding that “an extensive record of criminal activity may include criminal behavior which does not result in a conviction”). Based on the deference that this court must give to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences, I cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the Defendant had an extensive record of criminal activity and in imposing consecutive sentences. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgments of the trial court.

_________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of Tennessee v. Willie Hardy, Jr. - concurring in part, dissenting in part, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-willie-hardy-jr-concurring-in-part-dissenting-in-tenncrimapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack