### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 2000 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RYAN J. LITTLE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County Nos. 98-12784; 98-12785; 98-12786, Chris Craft, Judge

No. W1999-01033-CCA-R3-CD - Decided August 30, 2000

Ryan J. Little

was convicted of one count aggravated robbery, one count aggravated burglary, a nd three counts of attempted aggravated robbery. An effective twenty-four year sentence was imposed. In this appeal as o

f ri ght, the appellant contests the trial court's imposition of partial consecutive sentences. The proof before this court supports the trial court’s findi ng th at the appellant is a “dangerous off

ender.” Accor

dingly, we affirm

the sentencing de

cision of the trial

court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgm ent of the Crimina

l Court is affirme

d.
D AVID G. H AYES , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J AMES C URWOOD W ITT , J R ., J. and J OHN E VERETT W ILLIAM S , J., joined. Brett B. Stein, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Ryan J. Little.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gener al and Re porter, Michael Moore, Solicitor General, Lucian D. Geise, Assistant Attorney General, W ill iam L. Gibbons, District Attorney General, and Jim Wax and Glen Baity, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION
The appellant, Ryan J. Little, chal lenges , in this appeal as of right, the imposition of consecutive sentences resul t ing from his Shelby County convictions for aggravated robbery, aggravated

burglary, and three counts of attemptedaggravated robbery. After a jury's determination of guilt on these offe nses, the trial court imposed a sentence of twelve years for the offense of aggravated robbery, a sentence of six years for the offense of aggravated burglary, and a sentence of six years on each count of attempted aggravated robbery. Further, finding the appellant to be a dang erous offender, the court ordered the sentences for aggravated robber y, aggravated burgl ary an d one count of attempted aggravated robbery to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of twenty-four yea

rs.-2-

Following review, w

e affirm the tria

l court's imposition o

f consecutive se

ntences.
Background Shortlyafter midnight on July 19, 1998, Ben Reed, a nineteen year old college student, returned his date, Krystina Elton, also nineteen, to her parents’ residence in Shelby County. Reed pulled into the driveway and left his car running as Ms. Elton was getting her keys from her purse. Almost immediately after entering the driveway , t hree armed assailants surrounded the vehicle. One of the gunmen, late

r identified as the

appellant,knocked on the window and ordered the couple to "[g]et out of

the car." The terrified couple complied and offered the assailants their money. Reed was forced

to the ground and was "hit in the back of the head with the gun." Meanwhile, Ms. Elton had thrown her purse to the ground. The other two gunmen rummaged through her purse.
The assailants demanded to know who lived in the house. The young couple replied that the home belonged to Krystina's parents. With guns held to the back of their heads, the y

oung couple were forced

to let the gunmen into the home. Once inside, the appellant instructed Reed to "take him to the money." Reed le

d the appellant to

the room of Krystina's younger brother, Glenn. Glenn, who was asleep, w as awaken by Ree d who told him that the

y were being robb

ed. The appellan

t t he n struck Glenn with the gun.

During this assault

, Reed attempted to

grab the gun from theappellant. During the struggle the gun discharged, with the bullet striking the floor. The struggle continued andanother shot was f

ired. Reed event

ually was able to g

aincontrol of the weapon, while Glenn wrestled the app

ellant to the floor

. Reed, satisfied t

hat Glenn had subd

ued the appellan

t, returned to the living room. Meanwhile, the other gunmen continued to look for money and rummaged through the purse of Krystina's mother. At some point, another shot was fired, awaking Krystina's father, Danny Elton. Mr. Elton rushed out of his bedroom, yelling at his wife to call 9-1-1 and to get him his gun. A shot was fired at Mr. Elton

, fortunately, how

ever, the bullet m

issed its target. Mr

. Elton was able to c

hase two of the gu nmen out of the house amid the gunfire. Amidst the commotion, Reed returne d t o Glenn's bedroom where the appellant had freed himself from Glenn's hold. The appellant attempted to "swing" at Reed. Reed and Glenn were able to subdue the appellant until the police arrived. Sentencing
This court's review of the length, range, or manner of service of a sentence is de novo with a presumption that the determination made by the trial court is correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401(d). The burden is on the appellant to show that thesentence imposed is improper. Sentencing Commission Comments, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d).
In imposing consecutive sentences in the instant case, the trial court found the appellant to be a dangerous offender pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(4) and entered the following findings upon the record:-3-

The Court also finds that Mr. Little is a dangerous offender. Had it not been for the fact that these two men, one of them woken up from a sound sleep, apprehended him , somebody would have been killed or injured, strong likelihood. And I find that Mr. Little any man who gangs u

p with three other guys a

nd allof them arm themselves anddescend at night on a strange house, rob two kids and then at g unpoint force theminto their house so

they can rob their family members or rape them, whatever they wanted to do. Mr. L

ittle has absolutel

y no qualmsabout committing an o ffense without caring ab

out any results of i

t. The Court finds that Mr. Little is a dangerous offender and needs some consecutive sentencing because we need to be protected from this man. Society needs this man lockedup. Therefore, I'mgoing to run the aggravated robbery twelve year sentence consecutive to the burglary. And in doing so, after he rob bed - - after they robbed these two young people, there was absolutely no reason - - they could have stopped at that point and left,

but they, at gunpoint, forced them in the house after first asking them are there other victims in the house, proceeded on in there.
And I’m not going to give them a free aggrava ted bur glary. Then afte

r going in there, he then went into Mr. Glen Elton’s room a nd took a victim bac

k there with him at gunpoint to wake

up Mr. Elton so that he

could rob him.
The Court finds that Coun t 3, criminal-atte

mpt aggravate

d robbery , should run consecutively

with the burglary and the aggravated robbery. The othertwo criminalattempt robberies were of other people in the hou se. They were criminal attempt robberies because he never got anything from those vi ctims. Loo king at the aggregate sente nce under case law of twenty-four years, this Court feels that if I addedanything to

Mr. Lit tle’s sentence f

or those two other

criminal-attempt

s aggravated

robberies, that the sentence would be greater tha n that required to do justice to Mr. Little.

The appellant now argues that consecutive sentences were not warranted in this cas e. In opposing consecutive sen tences, he argu

es that the facts whi ch established the elements of the offenses are essentially the same facts utilized by the trial c ourt in finding the appellant to be a “dangerous offender.”
Before consecutive sentences can be imposed, the trial court must (1) first determine that one or more of the statutorily enumerated criteria of Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115 exists, see also Gray v. State , 538 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tenn.1976); and (2) find that the aggregate sente

nce is reasonab

ly related to the severity of the offenses and is necessary t o pro tect the public from further criminal activity of the offender, if the defendant is found to be a dangerous offender. State v. Wilkerson , 905 S.W.2d 933, 937 (Tenn.1995). See also State v. Lane , 3 S.W.3d 456 (Tenn.1999) (holding Wilkerson factors were limited to sentencing of "dangerous offenders"). Notwithstanding proof of these criteria, a sentencing court retains the discretion of imposing consecutive sent ences. On1 The presentenc e report r

eflect s that t he appellant

is ninet een years ol

d.
2 The appellant ’s prior

criminal history i

ncludes juve

nile adj udi cations for evading arrest, theft of p roperty under $500, crimina

l tres pass, t wo charges of t

heft of vehicle, possession of a weapo n, aggra vated bu rglary, diso rderly conduct and loi

tering. -4- appeal, the exercise of

the trial cou rt's discretion is afforded great weight, provided the court correctly applied the principles of

consecutive sentencing. Moreover, in determining whether the trial court providently exercised its discretion, "the overriding concern" is the fai rness of the resulting sentenc

e under all the ci

rcumstances. Consecutive sente nces are imposed upon dangerous of

fenders to prote

ct society agains

t offenders who commit aggravated crimes that pose a high risk to human life. Under Gray , a finding that a defendant is a "dangerous offender" is to be based solely upon the circumstances surrounding the crimes for which thedefendant is being sentenced. The court stated in Gray : "[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 th e risk to human life is high." 538 S.W.2d a t 393 (emphasis add

ed); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(4). We find this definition aptly described the appellant's conduct in the commission of the offenses in

this case. The record supports the trial court's findings re garding the appe llant's classific

ation as a dangerous offender. Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(4). Moreover, despite the youthfulness of the offender, 1 we find that based on the appellant's prior criminal history 2 a sentence of c onfinement is necessary to protect the public from the appellant's future criminal cond uct. Furth ermore, considering the five counts involved in the instant case, consecutive sentences are reasonably related to the severity of th

e crimes. The ap

pellant has faile

d to establish that the trial court abuse d its dis cre tion in ordering consecutive sentences. Thus, we conclude that consecutive sentences are warranted in the present case. The judgment is affirmed.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE