State of Tennessee v. James Allen Pollard

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the abuse of discretion standard of appellate review, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, governs challenges to the imposition of consecutive sentences, extending its Bise and Caudle line to the consecutive-sentencing context notwithstanding statutory de novo-review language. The Court further held that a trial court must still make the two additional Wilkerson findings — that the aggregate sentence reasonably relates to the severity of the offenses and is necessary to protect the public — before imposing consecutive sentences based on the dangerous offender classification. Because the trial court here recited only the bare statutory dangerous-offender language, the Court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded for a new sentencing hearing on whether the sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently. No separate opinions were filed.