### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 11, 200 6
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. THA DD EUS JOHNS ON

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 03-00441-42 A rthur T. Bennett, Judge

No. W2005-01600-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Jun e 30, 2006

The de fenda nt, Thaddeus Johnson, was convicted of first deg ree preme ditated m urder and attempted first deg ree murder. H e re ceive d a sente nce of life imprisonment for his m urder conviction and a
consec utive twen t y -f

i v e y ea r s en t en ce fo r h i s at t em p t ed m u rd erco n v i ct i o n

. On ap p ea l , t h e d ef endant prese nts the following issues f or re view: (1) the trial court c ommitt ed plain er ror by admitting hear say statements from non- testify ing c o-def endants; (2) the evidenc e wa s insufficient to convict the def endant of first deg ree preme ditated murder and attempted first deg ree murder; and (3) the trial court e rre d in ordering consec utive sentenc ing. U pon revie w of the re cord, pa rties’ brie fs and applicable law, we aff

irm the judg ments of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

Juni S. Ga ng uli (o n a

pp e a l) , M emp hi s, Te nn e sse e , a ndL arry F itzg e ra ld ( a t tria l) , M e mph is, Tenne ssee f

or the a ppellant, Thadde us J ohnson.

Pa ul G. Sum me rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Da vidH. F ind le y , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Pau l Hage rman a nd Ray L epone, A ssistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F AC TS
At trial, Lucille Neve ls testi f ie d th at h e r tw e n ty

- tw o

- y ear -old nephe w, Montrea l Graha m, was shot and killed at the Oakshire Apa rtments in A pril of 2002. Clarenc e Stuckey testified that he wa s hang ing out at the Oakshire Apartments w ith Gr aham, Antonio Ta y lor and Maurice Wooten. During this ti me, he he ard g unshots and fled the a rea

. When he returne d to the apartments, he learned that his friend, Gr aham, ha d b een shot and killed. St uckey did not know who fired the shots, but he-2-

rec alled that he sa w a g ray Crown Victoria , owned by J arvis Harris, drive by the apa rtments ear lier that day . Police Of

fi cer Fr ankie Moha mmad testified that he r esponded to the shooting at the Oakshire Apartments and discover ed Gr aham ly ing be tween two a partment building s in an are a known as the “ cut.” Gr aham ha d been shot in the he ad and w as pronounc ed dea d.

Eric Coo pe r t e sti fi e d th a t he wa s a g oo d f ri e ndof the c o- de fe nd a nt, Jar vis Ha rris. He a lso testified that he knew the defe ndant and co-de fenda nt, Maurice Thomas. Acc ording to Cooper, he and Ha rris we re ha ng ing out on April 11, 2002, drivin g ar o u n d in Harris’s g ray Crown Victoria

. L ater , around 7:00 p.m., Har ris picked up the defe ndant. The g roup then drove t o t h e O akshi re Apartments to pick up Thomas. Whi le there , Wooten was seen sta nding on the street n ea r t he apartments. After Thoma s was picke d up, he dire cted Ha rris t o his home and re trieved some bla ck clothes. At this point, C ooper be g an to suspect that something was g oing on and it involved W ooten. Cooper testi fied that the group drove back to the Oakshire Apartments. There , Har ris, the defe ndant, and Thoma s g ot out of the ca r and ha d a conve rsation; whereupon, the de fenda nt and T h o m as ch an ged i n t o b l ac k cl o t h i n g an d wa l k ed o ff

. As t h e d ef en d an tan d T h o m as we re l ea v i n g, Har ris told the defe ndant to c all him “when they g et throug h.” Ha

rris then drove Cooper to Cooper’ s apa rt me nt acr os s th e str e e t. Wh ile wa iti ng a t th e apa rt me nt, Coo pe r h e ardabo ut s ix g un sh ots

. Af te rw ard , H arris recei veda ph on e c a ll f

ro m th e de fe nd a nt. Ha

rris a ndCoo pe r the n d ro ve to Gra nny ’s M arke t wher e C ooper saw t he defenda nt and Thomas run across t he stree t with guns a nd g e t in to the c ar. On c e in the c ar, Coo pe r h e ardthe de fe nd a nt e xcla im, “ I sh ot that bi tc h. ” Th e n, in respon s e to h e ar in g H arr is te ll h im th a t h e s h o t th e w r o n g p e r s o n , th e d e f e n d a n t s a id , “f**k it.” Cooper also he ard Thoma s tell Harris that his gun jammed.
Cooper testified that Ha

rris drove the g roup to a hotel room. The re the defe ndant and Thomas cha ng ed clothes. Acc ording to Coope r, Har ris and the def

endant started ar g uing a

bout the defe n d a n t’ s a c ti o n s in s h o o ti n g th e w r o n g p e r s o n

. A f te r th e d e f

e n d a n t b u r n e d h is b la c k

clothes behind the hotel, the g roup left. L ater , Cooper learned that Woot en had be en the intende d targ et of the shooting be cause of a dispute be tween H arris and Wooten.
Tequil a Wi ld e r , th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s f

o r me r g irlf

r ie n d , te s ti f

ie d th a t o n A p r il 1 1 , 2 0 0 2, the defe ndant hung out with her until 7:00 p.m., t hen he le ft. The ne x t morning, the defe ndant ca lled he r a nda sk e d h e r t o te ll the po lic e that he w a s w ith he r o n A pril 1 1th . Wil de r s ta te d th a t sh e ini tia lly told police that the def

endant spent the night with he r, but she later c hang ed her mind and told the police that the de fenda nt was not with her.

Police Offic ers Shan Tr acy and Danny J ames testified that they rec overe d evidenc e re levant to the shooting of G raha m. Graha m’s cell phone w as re cover ed with bul let fra g ments in it. Bloody shirts were re co v er ed from the c rime sce ne, and burned clothing was c ollected f rom behind the Shelby I nn Motel.

Police Offic er Anthony Craig testified that Har ris became a suspec t in the shooting death of Graham af

ter Wooten told police about a prior alterc ation Har ris had with him a fe w day s befor e the-3-

sh oo tin g . A ft e r b e ing qu e sti on e d b y po lic e , H arris the n impl ica ted the de fe nd a nt a s a su sp e c t. Offic er Cra ig te stified that he intervie wed the de fenda nt. Accor ding to Offic er Craig , the def endant initiallytold him t hat he wa s with his girlfriend the day of the shooting . Howeve r, af ter lea rning that his girlf riend c hang ed her

story about his where abou t s , the def endant g ave a

written statement indicating his involvement in the shooting. Acc ording to t he def endant’ s written statement, he pa rt ici pa te d in the sh oo tin g a ft e r H arris p ut a $2 00 ,0 00 .0 0 “ c on tr a c t” on Woo te n. Ha rris a lso provided the c lothes and handg uns for the de fenda n t and Thomas. Ac cording to the defe ndant’s statement, Thomas fir ed a .38 r evolver once and shot Graham i n the hea d. The de fenda nt shot a .32 automatic handg un until it was e mpty but did not know if any

rounds he f

ired struc k Graham. The defe ndant also said he f

ired six t i m es at W o o ten and his brother . After war d, Har ris took the defe ndant to a hotel room a nd told him t o chang e clothes so he could burn them.

Dr. Te resa

Campbell, a for ensic pathologist, testified that Gra ham’s autopsy

reve aled that he suffere d g unshot injuries to his head and l eg

. After being shot, Graha m lost consciousness then di ed. Graham’s autopsy

also reve aled a lcohol and coc aine in his bloodstream. Ale x Br odhag , an expert firea

rms and ballistic examiner for the Tenne ssee B ureau of I nvestig ation, testified that the bullets recove red f

rom Graham’s body

came from .38 ca liber and .32 c aliber ha ndg uns.
AN AL YSI S

I. P lain E rror
Th e de fe nd a nt a

rg ue s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt

c omm itt e d e rr or

by a dmi tt in g h e ars a y

state me nts from non-te stify ing c o-def endants. Spec ifically , the def endant points to Eric Cooper and Police Offic er A nthony

Craig ’s testimony

conce rning statements made by co-de fenda nts, J arvis Ha

rris and Maurice Thomas. The de fenda nt conce des that no objec tions were r aised a t trial or in the motion for ne w trial, but he c ontends that these e rror s rise to the leve l of plain err or. We beg in our revie w by

noting that a

“criminal de fenda nt w ho has fa iled to properly prese rve the re levant issue is limited to se eking relief via plain er

ror r eview.” State v. Gome z , 163 S.W .3d 63 2, 64 5 ( Te nn . 2 00 5) ; se e als o Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b). “Plain error revie w extends onlyto a clea r, conspi cu o u s, or obvious err or which a ffe cts the substantial rig hts of the def endant.” Gomez , 163 S.W. 3da t 64 5 ( c itatio n o mit te d) . T he c ri te ri a fo r fi nd ing plain er ro r ar e dif fi c ult to s a tis fy . We wi ll not rec og nize plain error

unless the following five fa ctors ar e esta blished:
(a ) the re c or d .

. . c le arl y

e sta bli sh [es ] wh a t oc c ur

re d in the tr ia l c ou rt ; (b) a clea r and une quivocal rule of law [has] been bre ache d; (c) a substantial rig ht of the ac cused [has] been adve rsely aff ecte d; (d) the a ccuse d did not waive the issue f or tac tical re asons; and (e) consideration of the err or is “nec essary to do substantial just ice.”

Sta te v . S mi th , 2 4 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 4 , 2 8 2 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t i n g State v. Adk isson , 899 S.W .2d 626, 641-42 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ). All five f actor s must be established, and consideration of all five fa ctors-4-

is unnece ssary if any

one fa ctor indica tes that relief is not warra nted. Id

. at 283. The defe ndant has the burde n of proving the exist ence of plain er ror. See G omez , 163 S.W. 3da t 64 6. I n o rd e r f or thi s court to find plain er

ror, the e rror

must be o f s u ch a g reat mag nitude that it probably chang ed the outcome of the proce eding s. See A dkisson , 899 S.W .2d at 642.

A. C oo pe r’ s T e sti mony At trial, Cooper testified that he hea rd the following conver sation betwee n the defendant a nd
c o- de fe nd a nts , H arris a ndTh oma s:

Pr os e c uto r: Was the re a c on ve rs a tio n at th a t po int ? Cooper: Yes, sir. Prosecur or: And what wa s that conver sation? Cooper: Well, [ the def endant] was like I

shot that bitch. Pr os e c uto r: [Th e de fe nd a nt] s a id that? Cooper: Yes, sir. Pr os e c uto r: Wha t w a s sa id n e xt? Cooper: Then Jarvis [ Har ris] l ike, who did y ou shoot?

. . .

. . . . Then that wa s when Jarvis, like, that’s the wrong person. Pr os e c uto r: An d d id [the de fe nd a nt] m ake a re sp on se to that? Coo pe r: He wa s li ke , f ** k it

. P ro s ec u t o r: An d h o w a b o u tM au ri ce T h o m as , d i d h e s ayan y t h i n g? Cooper: He wa s like his gun f **ked up.
Upon revie w, we reje ct the defe ndant’s contention that the admission of this testim ony

was pla in e rr or . I n the ins ta nt ca se , the de fe nd a nt h a s n ot d e mon str a te d th a t a c le ar andun e qu ivo c a l rule of law ha s been br eac hed or tha t the complained e rror aff ecte d his su b s t antial rig hts. First, the defe ndant’s stateme nts to his co-defe ndants, althoug h hear say , are admissible as party -opponent admissions. See Te nn . R. Ev id. 80 3(1 .2 )(A)

. S eco nd , th e de fe nd a nt h a s n ot s ho wn that hi s co-de fenda nts’ statements ar e hear say ; that is, whether the statements wer e offe red for the truth of the matter a sserted. Se e id

. 801(c)

. I t r emains unclea r whether the co- defe ndants’ stateme nts were offe red f or t he truth of t heir content or offere d to provide contex t to the defe ndant’s stateme nts and describe, firsthand, the defe ndant’s interac tions with his co-de fenda nts. Third, even a ssuming the co-de fenda nts’ statements wer e hear say , these stateme nts appea r to be a dmissibl e as state ments by
co-c onspirators made during the co u rse of and in furthe ranc e of the conspirac y

. Id . 803 (1.2)( E). Statements of a c o-conspirator are admissible a s a hea rsay exception when: (1) the re is evide nce of the exist ence of the c onspiracy and the c onnection of the decla rant a nd the defe ndant to it; (2) the de c laratio n wa s ma de du ri ng the pe nd e nc y of the c on sp ir a c y ; a nd(3 ) the de c laratio n w a s ma de in further ance of the c onspiracy

. Sta te v . B e rry , 141 S.W .3d 549, 585 (Tenn. 2004). A “stateme nt may be in furthe ranc e of the conspirac y in countless way s. Ex amples include state ments desig ned to g et the sche me started, develop plans, arr ang e for things to be done to acc omplish t he g oal, update other

c on sp ira tor

s o n th e prog re ss , deal with aris ing problems , and provide information relevant t o the-5-

projec t.” Sta te v . Ca rru the rs , 35 S.W .3d 516, 556 (Tenn. 2000) (empha sis added). A conspirac y can be proven by

showing an implied unde rstanding betwee n the parties. See State v. Gay lor , 862 S.W .2d 546, 553 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). Given the fac t that the defe ndant has not demonstra ted t h e b reach of a

clea r and une quivocal rule of law or shown how the e rror

aff ecte d his substantial rig hts, we conc lude that the admission of the c o-def endants’ sta tements do not rise t o t h e l evel of plain err or.
B. O ff ic e r Cr aig ’s Te sti

mony At trial, Off

icer Craig testified that during the cour se of the homicide investigation, he and oth e r i nv e sti g a tin g of

fi c e rs ta lke d w ith Ha

rris, wh o “ ba sic a lly g a ve us the na me of [the de fe nd a nt]
as an o t h eri n d i v i d u al i n v o l v ed

. ” In t h i s i n s t an ce , t h e d ef en d an t , ci t i n g Bruton v. United States , 391 U.S. 123 (1968), contends that plain err or re view is appropriate bec ause this testimony was he arsa y and violated his constitutional rig ht to confront witnesses ag ainst him. Upon review, w e ca nnot
a sc e rt a in h ow thi s te sti mon y con stitut e s h e ars a y or vio la te s Bruton . Hea

rsay is defined a s “a state me nt, oth e r tha n o ne ma de by the de c larant w hil e te sti fy ing a t th e tr ia l or he ari ng , o ff

e re d in evidenc e to prove the truth of the matter as s er ted.” Te nn. R. Evid. 801(c). In Bruton , the United States Supreme Court held that the a dmission of a co-de fenda nt’s statement in cr i m i n at i ng the defe ndant violates the de fenda nt’s constitutional right to conf rontation of witnesse s when the codefe ndant is not available to testify

. Bruton , 391 U.S. at 136-37. Here, Of fice r Craig simplytestified
as t o h ow the def

endant be came a suspec t during the cour se of the homicide investigation. There fore , Offic er Cra ig’ s testimonyreg arding his first-hand observations and expe ri ence s is not hear say

. Also, Offic er Craig did not testify to any co-de fenda nt statement which incriminated the defe ndant. As such, Of

fice r Craig ’s testimony

neither r aises Bruton conce rns nor rise s to the level of plain er

ror.

I n s um, pla in e rr or

do e s n ot e xist un le ss the e rr or is of su c h “ g re a t ma g nitud e that it pr ob ably chang ed the outcome of the trial.” Adkisson , 899 S.W .2d at 642. Having revie wed the r ecor d, we discern no pla in error . There fore , the def endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.
II. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence
The de fenda nt arg ues that the e vidence was insuffic ient to convict him of first degr ee preme ditated murder

and attempted f

irst deg ree murder be cause therewas no proof of pre me d itation. Upon re view of this issue, we r eiterate t he well-established rule that once a j ury finds a def endant g uil ty , h is o r h e r p re su mpt ion of inn oc e nc e is re mov e d a ndre pla c e d w ith a pr e su mpt ion of

g uil t. State v. Ev ans , 838 S.W .2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) . There fore , on appea l, the convicted de fenda nt ha s th e bu rd e n o f d e mon str a tin g to this c ou rt wh y the e vid e nc e wi ll n ot s up po rt the jury ’s ve rd ic t. S ta t e v
. Car ru the rs , 3 5 S. W.3 d 5 16 , 5 57 -5 8 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) ; Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (T e nn . 1 98 2) . T o me e t th is b ur de n, the de fe nd a nt m us t e sta bli sh that no “ ratio na l trie r o f f a c t” c ou ld have f ound the essential elements of the crime bey ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 (1 97 9) ; State v. Ev ans , 108 S.W .3d 231, 236 (Tenn. 2003); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e)

. I n contra st, the jury ’s ver dict approve d by the trial judge acc redits the state’s witnesses and re solves-6-

all confl i cts in favor

of the state. Sta te v . H

ar ris , 8 39 S.W. 2d54 , 7 5 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) . T he state is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence and all re asonableinfere nces w hich may be draw n from that evide nce. Car ru the rs , 35 S.W .3d at 558. Questions conc erning the cr edibilityof the wi tne sse s, c on fl ic ts i n tria l te sti mon y , th e we ig ht andva lue t o be given the e vid e nc e , a nda ll fac tual issues raised by

the evidenc e ar e re solved b y t h e t ri er o f fact and not this court. State v. Bland , 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . We do not attempt to re-we igh or re- evaluat e the evidenc e. Sta te v . R e id , 91 S.W .3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002). L ikewise, we do not replac e the jury ’s infere nces dr awn f

rom the circ umstantial evidence with our own infer ence s. Id

. Relevant to the c ase he rein, first deg ree murder includes the “pr emeditated and intentional killing of another ” or a “ k ill ing of a no the r committed in the per petra tion of or att e mp t to pe rp e tra te
an y fir st d e gre e mu rde r . . . .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 202(a) (1)- (2) (emphasis adde d). Premeditation ref

ers to “an act done afte r the exercise of ref lection and judgme nt.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202( d). Premeditation “me ans that the intent to kill must have be en formed prior to the a ct itself.” Id . Howeve r, the intent to kill may b e fo rm ed in an instant and nee d not pre-e x ist in t he mind of t he accuse d for any definite pe riod of time. Id

. The exis tence of preme ditation is a question of fact for the j ury to determine and may be inferre d from the circ umstances surrounding the offe nse. Bland , 958 S.W .2d at 660. Among the circ umstances supporting pr emeditated mur der a re: a motive fo r t h e killing; the use of a deadly wea pon upon an unarme d victim; the particula r crue lty of a killing; the def

endant’ s threats or dec l arations of intent to kil l; the defe ndant’s proc ureme nt of a
wea p o n ; an y p re p ar at i o n s t o co n ce al t h e c ri m e u n d er t ak en b ef o re t h e c ri m e i s co m m i t t ed ; d estruction
or sec retion of e vidence of the killing; a nd a def en d an t ’s calmness a fter a killing. See State v. Dellinger , 79 S.W. 3d 45 8, 49 2 (T e nn . 200 2) ; Sta te v . Ni c ho ls , 24 S.W .3d 297, 302 (Tenn. 2000) ; Sta te v . Ne sb it , 97 8 S.W. 2d 87 2, 89 8 ( Te nn . 1 99 8) ; Bland , 958 S.W. 2d a t 660. Cr imi na l a tte mpt is
e xpla ine d a s f

oll ow s: (a ) A pe rs on c omm its c ri min a l a tte mpt wh o, a c tin g wi th thekind of c ulp abil ity otherwise r equire d for the of fense : (1 ) Inte nti on a lly

e ng a g e s ina c tio n o r caus e s a re su lt tha t wou ld c on sti tut e a n o ff e ns e if the circ umstances surr ounding the conduct were as t he person believes them to be; (2) Ac ts with int ent to cause a re sult that is a n element of the offe nse, and be lieves the conduc t will cause the r esult without further c onduct on the per son’s part; or (3 ) A c ts w it h in ten t to c omp le te a c ou rs e of

a c tio n o r c a us e a

re su lt that w ou ld constitute the offe nse, under the circ umstances surr ounding the conduct a s the per son believes the m to be, and the c onduct constitutes a substantial step t o wa rd the commission of the offe nse.

Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 9- 12 -1 01 . I n othe r wo rd s, c ri min a l atte mpt re qu ir e s the e xiste nc e of the sa me culpability

require d for the attempted crime, and an act in further ance of t he attempted crime. See W y att v . S tat e , 24 S.W .3d 319, 323 (Tenn. 2000)

. Viewing the ev i d ence in a lig ht most favorable to the state, we conclude that the evidenc e was suff icient for a

rational trier

of fa ct to convict the de fenda nt of the fi rs t deg ree murder of-7-

G r a h a m a n d th e a tt e mp te d f ir s t d e g r e e mu r d e r o f Wo o te n

. T h e e v id e n c e c le ar ly e s ta b li s hed that Har ris wanted someone to kill W ooten and of fer ed to pay

someone to kill him. The defe ndant, along with Thomas, ag reed t o p ar t i ci pate in killing Wooten. Afte r being driven to the Oa kshire Apartments, the defendant chang ed int o black clothes, went to the area where Wooten was last see n, t o o k a

. 3 2 a u t o m a t i c h a n d g u n , a n d f i r e d t h e g u n a tW o o t e n a n d G r a h a mu n t i l i tw a s e m p t y. After war ds, the defe ndant exclaimed that he “shot that bitch.” The defe ndant then burne d his clothes and aske d his girlf

riend to provide an alibi f

or him. I n sum, the evidenc e supports the jury ’s finding that t he defe nda nt’ s p re me dit a te d a tte mpt to mur de r Wo ote n r e su lte d in the mur de r o f G ra ha m. Acc ording ly , we c onclude that the e vidence prese nted at t ri al was suff icient to support the de fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio ns

.
III . Se nt e nc ing

The defe ndant arg ues that the trial court err ed in or dering him to serve his s en t ence s co n s ec u t i v el y

. C i t i n g State v. W ilkerson , 905 S.W .2d 933 (Tenn. 1995), the defe ndant asserts that the tr ia l c ou rt

faile d to fi nd that c on se c uti ve se nte nc ing wa s ne c e ssa ry to pr ote c t the pu bli c a g a ins t fu rthe r c ri min a l c on du c t a ndre a so na bly re la te d to the se ve ri ty

of the of fe ns e s.

Be fore a trial c ourt sentenc es a c onvicted def endant, it must consider (1) the evidenc e rec eived a t t h e trial and/or se ntencing hearing; ( 2) the pre sentenc e re port; (3) the principles of sentenci ng ; (4) the a

rg uments of counse l relative to sente ncing alternatives; (5) the nature a nd char acte ristics of the criminal conduct involved; ( 6) any mitigating or enha nceme nt fac tors; (7) any statements made by

the def endant in his or her own behalf; and (8) the defendant’s pote ntial or lack of po te nti a l f

or re ha bil itatio n or tr e a tme nt. Te nn

. Cod e An n. §§ 40 -3 5- 10 3, -2 10 ; Sta te v . I mf e ld , 70 S.W .3d 698, 704 (Tenn. 2002). The tria l court is also requir ed to place on the re cord its re asons for imposing the spe ci fic sente nce, inc luding the ide ntification of the mitigating a nd enhanc ement fac tors found, the spec ific fa cts supporting eac h enhanc ement fa ctor found, and the method by which the mitigating and enha nceme nt fac tors have be en eva luated in determining the se ntence

. Im fe ld , 70 S.W .3d at 704-05. Appe llate re view of a challeng ed sentenc e is a de novo revie w of the re cord with a pre sumption t hat the trial c ourt’s dete rminations are corr ect. T e n n. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401(d). This presumption of corr ectne ss is conditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the rec ord that the tri al court considere d the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances. State v. Pettus , 986 S.W .2d 540, 543-44 (Te nn. 1999). Howe ver, if the rec ord shows that the trial c ourt failed to consider the sentenc ing principles and all rele vant fa cts and c ircumstance s, then revie w of the cha lleng ed sente nce is purely de novo without the presumption of correc tness. State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991)

. On appeal, the def endant ha s the burden of

showing that the sentenc e imposed by

the trial court is im proper . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d)

. A trial court may impose consec utive sentenc ing upon a determination by

a pre pondera nce of the e vidence that one or more of the c riteria se t forth in Tenne ss ee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-115( b) exists . There fore , pursuant to this code section, a trial court may impose consec utive
se nte nc ing if

it d e te rm ine s th a t th e “ de fe nd a nt i s a da ng e ro us of

fe nd e r w ho se be ha vio r i nd ic a te s li ttl e or no re g ard f

or human life, and no hesitation about committing a crime in which the risk to human-8-

lif e is h ig h. ” Te nn . Code An n. § 40- 35 -1 15 (b )( 4)

. I f the tr ia l cou rt c on c lud e s tha t the de fe nd a nt i s a dang erous of

fende r under

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-115(b)( 4), it must also find that th e c on se c uti ve se nte nc ing re a so na bly re la te s to the se ve ri ty

of the of fe ns e c omm itt e d a ndis
n e c e s s ar y to p r o te c t th e p u b li c f

r o m f u r th e r s e r io u s c r im in a l c o n d u c t b y th e d e f endant. Imf

e ld , 70 S.W. 3da t 70 8; W

ilkerson , 905 S.W .2d at 939.

I n o rd e ri ng the c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s, the tr ia l cou rt fou nd that th e de fe nd a nt w a s a dang er o u s o ff

en d er w ho had an e x tensive criminal recor d. Specifica lly , the court found that
consec utive sentenc ing r easona bly rela ted to the seve ri t y o f t h e offenses c ommitt ed and w as nece ssary to protect the public f

rom furthe r serious criminal conduct by the def endant. In making its findings the c ourt stated:

[T] his defenda nt definitely falls within that cate g ory the way he ca rried out this crime. Total disreg ard. B ullets fly ing. He just e mptied his g un at somebody and did n’ t c are abo ut the fa c t tha t he h it s ome bo dy , h it the wr on g pe rs on a ndoth e r p e op le
we re ou t th e re . T he ri sk of a lot of hu ma n li ves wer e a t st ake a s w a s te sti fi e d in court. . . .

. . . . . . . Now whe ther or not he would be in a position to have any further criminal
c on du c t . . . I

do n’ t kn ow on c e he se rv e s h is [li fe ] se nte nc e

. . . . [He ] m a y or ma y no t.

But be that as it may , society would need to be prote cted f rom this defenda nt based on his history , his juvenile history which is extensive, on up to when he wa s an adult and the se off

enses we re c ommitt ed. . . .

After revie w, we c onclude that the trial court’s de cision t o i m p ose conse cutive sentenc ing is supporte d by the re cord. As the court noted, the defe ndant’s beha vior befor e and a fter firing his gun indiscriminately into a g roup of people in an ef fort to kill one of them demonstra tes his ind if fe re nc e to h uma n li fe a ndre fl e c ts the se ve ri ty of the of fe ns e . M or e ov e r, the de fe nd a nt’ s p a st criminal history

coupled with the violent cir cumstance s surrounding this murder justify the court’s fi nd ing that th e de fe nd a nt w a s d a ng e ro us to s oc ie ty . A c c or din g ly , th e de fe nd a nt i s n ot e nti tle d to relief on this iss ue.
IV. Conclusion

Ba sed upon our r eview of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgme nts of the tr ia l c ou rt

.-9- ___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE