### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs F eb ru ar y 10, 200 4 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. PA UL AN THON Y B UC KNE R Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 2002-A- 283 Seth Norm an, Jud ge

No. M2003- 01743-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Fe bruary 25, 2004
The de fenda

nt pled guilty to two counts of attempted sec ond degree murder. F ollowing a sentenc ing hear ing, the trial court imposed two c onsecutive te n-year sent en ce s . The de fenda nt contends on appea l the trial court err ed in imposing consec utive sentenc es. We affir m the judgme nts of the trial court. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed J OE G. R I L EY , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I LLI A M S and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined. Dwig ht E. Scott, Nashville, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, Paul Anthony Buc kner. Pa ul G . Summe rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; El iza

be th T . Rya

n, Se nio r C ounsel ; Vi c tor S. J ohns o n , I I I , Di strict Attorney Gene ral; and Christopher R. Bufor d and Sara

h N. Davis, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee .

OP IN ION On May 21, 2001, the def

endant r epeatedly

stabbed the two v i ctims, Ebony Taylor and Cassandra

Thomas, with a knife . The de fenda nt was indicted on two counts of attempted f irst deg ree murder, but pled guilty

to attempted sec ond degree murder. T he trial c ourt conduc ted a se ntencing he ari ngand

imp os e d tw o c on se c uti ve te n- y e ar se nte nc e s, fo r an e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e of

tw e nty y e ars . The de fenda

nt argues the trial c ourt improperly found that he w as a “ p rofe ssional criminal” a nd
“ d an g e r o u s o f

f e n d e r ” in s u

p p o rt o f th e c o n s e c uti v e s e n te n c e s. See T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35- 115(b)( 1), (4)
. F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND Th e de fe nd ant a

nd on e of the vic tim s, Ca ssa

nd ra Th oma s, ha d b e e n in

vo lve d in a

ro manti c relationship. At t he time of the cur rent off ense, a n ag g ravated assault ca se in which Ms. Thomas wa s-2-

the victim was pendingag ainst the defe ndant. On the night of May 21, 2001, the def

endant a ppear ed at Ms. Thomas’ re sidence , but she was not ther e. E b o n y Taylor was at Ms. Thomas’ reside nce baby sitti ngMs. Thomas’ childre n. Ms. Taylor testified that af ter e nteringthe house a g ainst her wishe s, the defe ndant locked the fr ont do or , p ull e d a kn if

e , and sta bb e d he r in the fa c e , c he st a nd low e r b od

y . T he de fe nd ant t old

Ms. Taylor she was goingto die and that “w e’r e all g oing to die.” Ms. Taylor pleade d for he r life, telling the def endant that she had a son. Ms. Thomas returned home duringthe assault, and the defe ndant beg an stabbingher. Ms. Thomas sustaine d wounds to her a rm, back, side , and che st. Ms. Taylor and Ms. Thomas were hospitaliz ed for three and four days, respe ctively
. The de fenda nt, who stabbed himself in the chest followingthe assaults on the victims, was a lso hospitaliz ed. CO NSE CU TIV E SEN TEN CE S The de fenda

nt contends the trial court e rre d in applying f actor s (1) a

nd (4) of section 40-35- 115(b) of Tenne ssee Code Annotated. A c ourt may order sentenc es to run consec utively if the cour

t fi nd s b y a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that: (1) [t] he def

endant is a profess i o n al cr i m i n al wh o h as knowing ly devoted such defe ndant’s life to c riminal acts as a major sourc e of livelihood; (2) [t] he def

endant is an of

fende r whose record of criminal activity is ex tensive;

. . . (4) [ t] he defenda

nt is a dange rous offender

whose be havior indica

tes littl e or no reg ard for human life , and no hesitation about commi tting a crime in which the risk to human life is high;

. . . . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-115(b) (1), ( 2), (4) ; se eals o Sta t e v . I mfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698, 708 (Tenn. 20 02 ). F ur

the rm or e , in

thee ve nt t

hetria l c ou

rt fi nd s a de fend a nt i s a “ da ng e ro us of

fend e r, ” it m

us t also de ter mi n e wh e th e r th e c o n s e c uti v e s e nten c e s ( 1 ) a r e r e a s o n a

b ly r e la te d to th e s e v e rit

y of the offe nses committed; and (2) se rve to protec t the publ ic from further criminal conduc t by the offender. State v. Wil kerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 939 (Tenn. 1995). The de fenda

nt, in the ten year s prior to these offe n s es, was convicted of the fe lony

sale of drug s, two assaults, criminal trespa ss, possession of drug para phernalia, malicious mischief, fraud, possession of a g ambling de vice, thre e coun t s o f driving on a re voked license , and seve ral motor vehicle violations. Additionally , the def endant ha s a proba

tion violation. Despite the defe ndant’s numerous prior c onvictions, however , the re cord doe s not indicate the def endant’ s criminal ac ts were a major source of

his livelihood. W e must, theref o re , concludethe trial cour t erre d in finding theT h e sa m e trial c o u rt h a s faile d to m a k e the se re q u ire d fi n d ing s o n nu m e ro u s p rio r o c c a sio n s. S e e , e.g ., S ta te 1 v . Tu r n e r , 4 1 S
. W
. 3 d 6 6 3 , 6 7 5 ( Te n n . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) ; S t a t e v . Ke r r y L
. Do w e l l , No
. M 2 0 0 2
- 0 0 6 3 0
- C C A
- R 3
- C D, 2 0 0 3 T e n n . C rim . A p p . L E X IS 5 5 7 , at *5 1 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . Ju n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 3 ), per m . t o ap p. deni ed (T e n n . 2 0 0 3 ); S ta te v . M a u r i c e L a mo n t Dav i ds on , N o. M 20 02
- 00 17 8- CCA- R3- CD, 20 03 T e n n . Cr i m. App
. LEXI S 50 , a t * 38 ( T e n n . Cr i m. A p p . Ja n . 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 ), per m . t o app. de ni ed ( Te n n . 20 0 3 ) ; S t a t e v . M a r i o P e n d e r g r a s s , No
. M 1 9 9 9
- 0 2 5 3 2
- C C A
- R 3
- C D, 2002 T en n . Cr i m. App. LEX I S 311, at * 63 (T en n . C r i m. A pp. A pr . 5, 2002); St at e v . D ar r el l M
. Sc al es , N o. M 2000- 0 3 1 5 0 -C C A -R 3 -C D , 2 0 0 2 T e n n . C rim
. A p p . L E X IS 3 3 , a t *3 3 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . Ja n . 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 ), per m . t o ap p. deni ed ( T enn . 200 2); St at e v . Jas on C. Cart er , et al
. , N o. M 19 98
- 00 79 8- C C A
- R 3- C D , 200 0 T enn . Cri m. Ap p. LE X I S 34 0, at *3 8 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . A p r. 2 7 , 2 0 0 0 ), per m . t o ap p. deni ed (T en n . 2000); T y r on e W
. V an l i er , Sr
. v. St at e, N o. 01C01- 9 8 0 5
- C R
- 0 0 2 0 5 , 19 9 8 T enn. C ri m . A p p . LE X IS 7 6 1 (T enn. C ri m . A p p . J ul y 2 3 , 1 9 9 8 ) (ord er rem and i ng for t he second t i m e f o r f i nd i ngs as t o c o nsecut i ve sent enci ng)) ; S t at e v. T y rone W
. V anl i er, S r. , N o . 0 1 C 0 1
- 9 6 0 8
- C R
- 0 0 3 4 1 , 19 9 7 T enn. C ri m . A p p . LE X IS 9 1 8 , at * 1 2 (T enn. C ri m . A p p . Se p t
. 1 9 , 1 9 9 7 ) (r em and i ng f o r f i nd i ngs as t o co nsecut i ve sent enci ng). B y co nt i nual l y f

ai l i ng t o ab i d e b y o ur st at e suprem e co urt ’ s d i rect i ve i n W i l kers o n, t he t ri al co urt ’ s co nsecut i ve sent enci ng l o ses i t s p res um p t i o n of co rr ect ness and requi res t hi s co urt t o ei t her r evi ew co nsecut i ve sent enci ng de no vo w i t ho ut any p resu m p t i o n o f

co rrec t ne ss o r rem an d f o r f urthe r f i nd i ng s. O ur stat e sup rem e c o urt’ s ho l d i ng i n W i l ke rso n “req uires” t hat t he t rial c o urt make t hes e t wo f i ndi ng s f or “ t he i mp osi t i on of

cons ecu t i ve s ent enc es on an of f ender f ound t o be a dan g er ou s of

f en der
. ” W i l k er s on , 905 S. W
. 2d a t 939. -3- defe ndant was a “prof

essional criminal” whose criminal acts were a “ major sourc e of livelihood.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-115(b) (1). With respe ct to fac tor (4), a “dang erous offende r,” the trial court failed t o make the Wilkerson finding s. Neve rtheless, by conductinga de novo revie w, we find abundant pr oof in the re cord that 1 extended sentenc ing is ne cessa ry to protect the public f

rom future criminal condu ct and that an eff ective se ntence of t wenty y ear s rea sonably relates to the sever ity of the off enses. SeeWil kerson, 905 S.W .2 d at 9 3 9
. Both off enses were unprovoked, violent crimes. The def endant a t the time of these off enses ha d a pending

ag grava ted assault ag ainst one of the vic tims. He viciously stabbed a nd tried to kill the baby sitter, Ms. Tay lor, and Ms. Thomas while Ms. Thomas’ chi l dre n were in the residenc e. Hethen stabbed himself. His prior criminal history included assa

ults. Thus, the defenda

nt qualifies as a da

ng erous of

fende r. See T e nn . Co d e Ann . § 40-35-115(b)(4) . We also note the cr iminal history of this defe ndant is indeed “ extensive,” thus making f acto r (2) applicable e ven thoug h the trial court did not apply

this factor. See id. § 40-35-115(b)(2)
. The trial court did not e rr in orde ring co n s ec ut i v e s en t en ci n g. Acc ording ly , the judg ments of the trial c ourt areaff irmed.

____________________________________ J OE G. RI L EY, JUDGE