IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs November 17, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MARIO THOMAS

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 13-04522 James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge

No. W2015-00533-CCA-R3-CD - Filed February 3, 2016

_____________________________

The defendant, Mario Thomas, appeals the sentences imposed for his guilty pleas to the 

offenses of aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, 

aggravated burglary, employing a firearm in the commission of a dangerous felony, and 

possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony involving the use or 

attempted use of violence. The defendant‟s sole allegation of error is that the trial court 

should not have ordered his convictions for aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery 

to run consecutively. After a thorough review of the record, we discern no error and 

affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROGER A.

PAGE and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JJ. joined.

Stephen Bush, District Public Defender; and Phyllis Aluko (on appeal) and Michael J. 

Johnson (at trial), Assistant District Public Defenders, for the Appellant, Mario Thomas.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Caitlin Smith, Assistant Attorney 

General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Ann Schiller, Assistant District 

Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The defendant was charged in a six-count indictment with the offenses of which 

he stands convicted. A jury was selected on November 17, 2014, and the trial 

commenced the next day. On November 19, 2014, before the trial concluded, the 

defendant entered guilty pleas to the charged offenses. 

The defendant refused to attend his sentencing hearing, and it was conducted in 

absentia. The prosecution noted that the defendant had originally refused its twelve-year 

offer but chose to plead guilty in the course of the trial. The plea colloquy is not part of 

the record, but the prosecutor summarized the crimes by stating that the defendant had 

been begging for money and that the three victims, Dominic Van Horn, John Brown, and 

Laurel Cannito, initially gave him some money and then paid him to sweep the porch. 

One of the victims gave the defendant a ride in the evening. Later that night, the 

defendant entered the dwelling shared by the victims. According to the facts as 

summarized in the presentencing report, Mr. Brown was woken at gunpoint by the 

defendant, who was demanding his money. Mr. Van Horn came to investigate the noise. 

The defendant took money from Mr. Van Horn‟s pocket and ordered both men to the 

floor. Ms. Cannito then woke up and entered the room, and the defendant pointed the

gun at her. Mr. Brown took this opportunity to flee the house, and the defendant 

followed. The defendant was identified later through his distinctive facial tattoos. The 

presentencing report showed that the defendant had three prior convictions for aggravated 

burglary and two prior convictions for theft of property over $1,000. 

The trial court found that the defendant had an “extensive history of criminal 

convictions,” including three prior aggravated burglary convictions, two prior convictions 

for theft of property over $1,000, and two misdemeanor theft convictions. The trial court 

also found that the defendant was a dangerous offender whose behavior indicated little or 

no regard for human life and that he had no hesitation about committing an offense where 

the risk to human life was high. The trial court found that the circumstances of the 

offenses were aggravated, as the defendant committed a home invasion and was only 

thwarted from further crimes by the escape of one of the victims. The trial court cited the 

defendant‟s multiple prior burglaries as proof that confinement was necessary to protect 

society from the defendant‟s further criminal behavior. The trial court found that the 

aggregate length of the sentences was reasonably related to the offenses. 

For the aggravated robbery of Mr. Van Horn, the defendant was sentenced to serve 

fifteen years in prison. For the attempted aggravated robbery of Mr. Brown, the 

defendant was sentenced to eight years. The defendant received a six-year sentence for 

the aggravated assault of Ms. Cannito and a six-year sentence for the aggravated burglary

conviction. He was sentenced to ten years for employing a firearm during a dangerous
3

felony and six years for being a felon in possession of a firearm after having been 

convicted of a felony involving the use or attempted use of violence. Three of the 

convictions were to run consecutively to one another: the fifteen-year conviction for 

aggravated robbery, the six-year conviction for aggravated burglary, and the ten-year 

conviction for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The 

other convictions were ordered to run concurrently with all counts. The defendant‟s 

aggregate sentence amounts to thirty-one years. 

ANALYSIS

On appeal, the defendant contests only the trial court‟s decision to run certain 

sentences consecutively. A trial court‟s sentencing decisions are generally reviewed for

abuse of discretion, with a presumption of reasonableness granted to within-range 

sentences that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of sentencing. 

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). Likewise, the “standard of appellate 

review for consecutive sentencing is abuse of discretion accompanied by a presumption 

of reasonableness.” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Tenn. 2013). The 

presumption of reasonableness applies only when the trial court has provided reasons on 

the record establishing at least one of the seven statutory bases for imposing consecutive 

sentences delineated in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b) (2010). Id. at 

861. Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b) allows a court to impose 

consecutive sentences when “[t]he defendant is an offender whose record of criminal 

activity is extensive” or when “[t]he 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)(2), (4). When the trial 

court bases its decision to run sentences consecutively on the dangerous offender 

category in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)(4), it must make additional 

findings as set out in State v. Wilkerson: that the aggregate sentence is “„reasonably 

related to the severity of the offenses‟” and „„necessary in order to protect the public from 

further criminal acts.‟” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 863 (quoting State v. Wilkerson, 905 

S.W.2d 933, 938 (Tenn. 1995)). If the trial court fails to make the requisite findings, the 

appellate court may either conduct a de novo review to determine whether there is an 

adequate basis for the imposition of consecutive sentences or remand to the trial court so 

that it may consider the appropriate factors and make the proper findings. Id. at 864.

The defense concedes that the conviction for employing a firearm must run 

consecutively to the underlying dangerous felony by law. See T.C.A. § 39-17-1324(e)(1) 

(“A sentence imposed for a violation of subsection (a) or (b) shall be served consecutive 

to any other sentence the person ... is sentenced to serve for conviction of the underlying 
4

dangerous felony.”). Accordingly, he does not contest that his ten-year sentence for 

employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony must run 

consecutively to his six-year sentence for aggravated burglary, the underlying felony.

However, he does object that both of these sentences were ordered to run consecutively 

to his fifteen-year sentence for aggravated robbery. In support of its imposition of 

consecutive sentences, the trial court found that the defendant had an “extensive history 

of criminal convictions.” It further found that the defendant was “a dangerous offender 

whose behavior indicates little or no regard for human life and that he had no hesitation 

about committing this offense in which the risk to human life was high.” The trial court 

found that, based on the defendant‟s past criminal behavior, extended confinement was 

“necessary to protect society from his unwillingness to lead a productive life” and that 

“the aggregate length of the sentence reasonably relates to the offense of which the 

defendant stands convicted.” The trial court made the requisite findings under T.C.A.

section 40-35-115(b)(2), (4) and Wilkerson, and we accordingly grant the trial court‟s

findings a presumption of reasonableness. See Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 863 (quoting 

Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d at 938). The trial court properly considered the purposes and 

principles of sentencing during the hearing, and it imposed consecutive sentences after

finding that the statutory requirements were met. There is nothing in the record to show 

that the trial court abused its discretion. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasoning, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

_________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE