### IN THE S UP REME COURT OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A pr il 8, 200 9 S es sio n

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . TRAVIS YOUNG

App e al b y P e r m iss ion fro m th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

Crim inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty Nos. 03-05457 & 03- 05459 W. Otis Higgs, Jr., Jud ge

No. W2005-02593-SC- R11-CD - F iled April 30, 2009

Not for P ubl ication

This appea l involves the sentencingof a de fenda nt who shot and seriously

wounded a

victim during

an ar med robbe ry

and then two da

y s later led law enforce ment authorities on a lengthy and dang erous high- speed c hase in a

n attempt to evade arr est. A Sh el b y C o u n t y j u ry convicted the defe ndant of numerous off

enses a rising out o f th e s e incidents, a

nd the trial cour

t imposed an eff

ective sixteen-y ear sentenc e. On the defe ndant’s first appea l, the Court of Criminal Appeals vac ated the se ntence s and

rema nded the case for a new sentenc ing hear ing afte r concluding that the trial cou rt ’s s en t encing finding s were inadequate. On re mand, the trial c ourt imposed the same six teen- y ear sentenc e. On the def endant’ s second a

ppeal, the Court of

Criminal Appeals made its own s entenc ing f indings a nd imposed an ef

fec tive sevente en-y ear

sentenc e on the de fenda

nt. We gr anted the defe ndant’s Te nn. R. A pp . P. 11 a

pp lic a tio n. We no w ho ld that the Court of Cr imi na l Ap pe a ls e xce e de d it s a uth or ity under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( c)( 2) (2006) by incre asing the def

endant’ s eff

ective se ntence from six teen to seve nteen y ear s. We also hold (1) that the S ix th Amendment to the United States Constit ution doe s not r equire that the fac ts ne cessa ry for the imposit ion of consec utive sentenc es be de te rm ine d b y

a jur y , (2) that the Court

of Cr imi na l App e a ls m a de a de qu a te fi nd ing s w ithre g a rd to its de c isi on

to i mpo se c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s, and (3 ) that the re c or d co nta ins su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to sustain a dec ision to i mpose an e ffe ctive six teen- y ear sentenc e on the de fenda

nt.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 1 1 A ppe al b y P e r m iss ion ; Judgme nt of th e Courtof Crim inal Ap peals Aff irm ed as Modif

ied

W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J ANI CE M. H OL DER , C.J ., C OR NE L I A A. C LARK , G AR Y R. W ADE , and S HAR ON G. L EE , J J ., joined.
Phy llis Aluko and Robert J ones (on a ppeal) , and Timothy

Albers ( at trial), Memphis, T ennesse e, for t h e ap p el l an t , T ra v i s Yo u n g. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; Michael E. Moore , Solicitor Genera l; Brian Clay J ohnson and R ac h el E. Wil lis, Assist ant Attorney s Gene ral; Will iam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; Paul Go o d m an , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Tenne ssee.In a c c o rd a n c e w ith T e n n . S u p . C t. R . 4 (A )( 2 ), w e d e sig n a te this o p inio n a s “N o t F o r P u b lica tio n .” 1

-2- MEMORAN DUM OP IN ION 1

I.

On Fe bruar

y 25, 2003, Travis Youngand Christopher B ridg es ate lunch tog ether in a room at the Southern Su n M o t el i n Memphis. Mr. Young went to the bathr oom during the meal a nd

re tur ne d w itha

re vo lve r. He de mand e d that Mr

. B ri dg e s surr e nd e r his mon e y , je we lr y , a nd c a r k e y s. Mr. B ridg es complied. Even though Mr. Young threatened to “blow [Mr. Br idge s’s] head off” if he fo llo we d h im o ut o f the mot e l roo m, Mr . Br idg e s fol low e d Mr. Yo un g ou t of the ro om to as k f or his driver’ s license a

nd his key s other than his car key

. Mr. Young re sponded by shooting Mr. B ridg es twice in the legbefor e driving off in Mr. B ridg es’s a utomobile.

On Fe bruar

y 27, 2003, two law enforce ment office rs attempted to stop Mr. Young while he was driving the automobile he had stolen from Mr. Br idge s. I nstead of stopping, Mr. Young rammed one of the office r’s ve hicles and f led down Elvis Presley Boule vard onto the interstate he ading for the Mississ ippi line. The ensuing chase involved approximately fifty police vehic les. Despite the he a vy tr a ff

ic , Mr

. Yo un g dr ov e a t sp e e ds e xce e din g on e hund re d mi le s p e r h our w hil e ta lki ngon his

c e llu lar t e le ph on e . In th e pr oc e ss, Mr . Y ounghit se ve ra l po lic e ve hic le s.

When law enf

orce ment office rs from Mississippi bl ocked the interstate n ea r t h e state line with their vehicle s , M r. Yo u n g made a U-turn a nd heade d back to Me mphis. The pursuit ended wh e n Mr

. Yo un g c oll ide d wi th a po lic e ve hic le wi th su c h fo rc e that it pu sh e d the po lic e ve hic le int o
a g ua rd ra il. Af te r h is a uto mob ile sp un

to a sto p, Mr . You

ng tr ie d to esc a

pe on fo ot b y

ru nn inga c ro ss t h e i n t e r s t a t e h i gh wa y

an d d o wn an em b an km en t

. He wa s ap p re h en d edo n l y af t er p o l i ce d o gs br ou g ht h im t o th e g ro un d w hil e he wa s tr y ingto c lim

b a fe nc e . Wh e n M r. Yo un g wa s ta ke n in to custody , the police f

ound Mr. B ridg es’s prope rty in his possession.

Mr . Y oungwa s c ha

rg e d w iththe ro bb e ry

and sh oo tin g of

Mr . B ri dg e s and

fo r c oll idi ngwi th police vehic les while attempting to evade ar re st. Following a trial on F ebrua ry 20, 2004, a jury

c o n v i c t e d M r

. Y o u n g o f t w o c o u n t s o f a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y a n d o n e c o u n t o f a g g r a va te d a ssault stemming fr om the Fe bruar y 25, 2003 incident involving Mr. Br idge s and two counts of ag g ravated assault, two counts of r eckle ss ag g ravated assault, and one count of evading arr est stemming f rom his e ff or ts o n F e br ua ry 27 , 200 3 to fle e fr om the po lic e

. Th e tr ia l court se nte nc e d Mr. Yo un g a s a Rang e I of

fe nd e r to tw o me rg e d te n- y e a r se nte nc e s fo r the a g g ra vate d ro bb e ry c on vic tio ns

. I t a lso

se nte nc e d M r. Yo un g a s a Rang e I Iof

fe nd e r t o s ix y e a rs on

the a g g ra

vate d a ssa

ult , r e c kle ss ag g ravated assault, and e vading arr est co n v i ct i o ns. The trial c ourt also orde red that Mr. Young ’s sentenc es ar ising fr om the robber y and shooting of Mr. Bridg es be se rved c oncurr ently , and that the

s e n t e n c e s a r i s i n g f

r o m c o l l i d i n g w i t h p o l i c e o f f i c e r s w h i l e e v a d i n g a r

r e s t b e s e r v e d c o n c u r

r e n t l y. Th e tr ia l c ourt

a lso or de re d th e e ff

e c tiv e se nte nc e s fo r t

he se tw o in c ide nts to b e se rv e d c on se c uti ve ly for a n eff ective sixteen-y ear

sentenc e.-3-

Mr. Young appea led. The Court of Criminal Appea ls affirme d the convictions but rema nded the c a se fo r a ne w s e nte nc inghe a ri ngfo r t he fo llo wi ngthr e e re a so ns : ( 1) the tr ia l c ourt fa ile d to make specific findings jus tify ing the imposit ion of consecutive sentences; (2) the trial cour t failed to identify

and support the e nhance ment fac tors applied to the reckless ag g ravated assault, eva ding

a rr e st, a nd a g g ra

vate d ro bb e ry c on vic tio ns ; a nd (3 ) the tr ia l c ourt fa ile d to ide ntify th e sp e c if

ic convictions upon which it had re lied when it c lassified Mr. Youngas a multiple offe nder f or
se nte nc ingon

his a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult , r e c kles s agg rav a te d a ssa ult , a nd e va din g arr e st c on vic tio ns

. State v. Y oung , No. W2004-01752-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1541854, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 23, 2005) (No T enn. R. App. P. 11 application filed)

.
Af te r t he c a se wa s r e mand e d, the tr ia l c ourt c on du c te d a

se c on d se nte nc ing he a ri nga nd a g a in sentenc ed Mr. Youngto the same effe ctive si x teen- y ear sentenc e that it had originally imposed. Mr. Young appea led for the second time. In an opinion filed on Marc h 28, 2007, the Court of Criminal Appea ls c oncluded that the trial court had failed to f ollow the Court of Criminal Appea l s ’ earlier

o p i n i o n b ec au s e t he trial c ourt had agai n s en t en ce d M r. Yo u n g “w i t h o u tar t i cu l at i n g s p ec i fi c f i n d i n gs of fact or articulating how the enhanc ement and mitig ating fac tors wer e eva luated.” State v. Y oung , No. W2005-02593-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. L EXI S 269, at *4 (Mar . 28, 2007). Rather than re manding the ca se ag ain, the Court of Criminal Appea ls d ec i d ed t o m odify Mr. Young ’s sentenc es. With reg ard to the offenses aga inst Mr. Bridg es, t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls sentence d Mr. Young to sixteen-y ear sentenc es on the merg ed ag g ravated robbe ry convictions and a

six -y ear sentenc e on the ag g ravated assault conviction to be se rved c oncurr ently with the ag g ravated robbe ry convictions. State v. Y

oung , 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. L EXI S 269, at *23.

Withre g a rd

to t he c on vic tio ns a ri sin g ou t of the po lic e c ha se , the Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls

se nte nc e d M r. Yo un g to s e ve n y e a rs fo r t he a g g ra vate d a ssa ult c on vic tio ns , f

ive y e a rs fo r t

he re c kle ss ag g ravated assault convictions, and four y ear s for the intentionally evadingarr est conviction. Sta te v. Y oung , 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. L EXI S 269, at *25-26. L ike the trial c ourt, the Court of Criminal Appea ls c oncluded “that an eff ective sentenc e of six teen y ear s rea sonably relates to the sever ity of the offe nses committed.” State v. Y oung , 2 0 0 7 T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. L E X IS 2 6 9 , a t* 2 9

. A c c o r d i n g l y, the C ourt of C riminal Appea ls deter mined that the s entenc es shoul d run concurre ntly for a n eff ective six teen- y ear

sentenc e. State v. Y

oung , 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. L EXI S 269, at *29-30.
Mr. Young filed a Te nn. R. A pp. P. 39 petition for rehe aringasser ting ( 1) that the Court of Criminal Appeals had misclassified him as a Rang e I Ioffe nder f or his merg ed ag g ravated robbe ry convictions and (2) that the manner in which the Court of Criminal Appea ls considere d and applied the enha ncing fac tors violated Blakely v. W ashington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The Court of Criminal Appea ls g rante d the petition f or rehe aring

. I n a revised opinion f iled on Fe bruar

y 13, 2008, the Court of Criminal Appea ls affirme d the trial cour t’s concur rent ten-y ear

ag g ravated robbe ry

sentenc e and the six -y ear

ag g ravated assault sente nce f or an eff ective ten-y ear sentenc e for the convictions arising out of the robbe ry

of Mr. B ridg es. S

ta tev

. You ng , N o

. W2 0 0 5

- 0 2 5 9 3

- CC A

- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 8 WL 382762, at *7 (Te nn. Crim. App. Feb. 13, 2008) . Wit h reg ard to t h e co n v i ctions arising from the poli c e c h a s e o n F e b r

u a r y 2 7 , 2 0 0 3 , th e Co u rt o f Cr im in a l A p p e a ls s e n te n c e d M r

. Y o u n g to seven y e a rs on his a g g ra vate d a ssa ult c on vic tio ns , f

ive y e a rs on

his re c kle ss a g g r a vate d a ssa ult c on vic tio ns , and four y ear s on his intentionally evadingarr est conviction. State v. Y oung , 2008 WL 382762, atT enn

. Co de Ann. § 40

- 35

- 40 1(c) ( 3) aut hor i zes t he C our t o f C r i mi nal A pp eal s t o “ [ r ] emand t he cas e or di r ect 2

t he ent r y of

an y appropri at e s ent enc e or order

. ” W hen onl y t he def endan t appeal s a convi ct i on and s ent enc e, an order i n cr ea s i n g t h e def

en dan t ’ s s en t en ce w ou l d n ot be “ appr opr i at e” be ca u s e i t w ou l d be con t r ar y t o T en n

. Code An n

. § 40- 3 5

- 4 0 1 (c)( 2 ).

-4- *8. The court deter

mined that these sente nces should be se rved c oncurr ently for a n eff ective se veny ear sentenc e. State v. Y

oung , 2 00 8 WL

38 27 62 , at *8 . T he Court of Cr im in al App e a ls a lso

c on c lud e d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ’s imp os iti on of c on se c uti ve se nte nc ing wi th re g a rd to the tw o in c ide nts
was a ppropriate and imposed an ef fec tive sevente en-y ear

sentenc e. State v. Y

oung , 2 0 0 8 WL 382762, at *9.

Mr . Young so ug ht pe rm iss ion to ap pe a l to thi s Co ur t. We g ra nte d h is a pp lic a tio n o n A ug us t 25 , 2 00 8. I n a dd iti on

to t he iss ue s r a ised in Mr . Y oung ’s a pp lic a tio n, we re qu e ste d th e pa rt ie s to addre ss the validity

of the Cour t o f C ri minal Appeals’ de cision to increa se Mr. Young ’s sentenc e for the two a g g ravated assault convic tions from six y ear s to seven y ear s in light of the limitations

on an ap p el late cour

t’s authority

found in Tenn. Code A nn. § 40-35-401( c)( 2) (2006) . On appe al befor e this Court, Mr. Young argues (1) that u n d er t h e S i x th Amendment to the United States Constit ution, as interpre ted in Blakely v. W ashington a nd

its pr og e ny , a

jur y ra the r t ha n a c ourt mus t make the nece ssary fac tual finding s for imposition of consec utive sentenc ing, ( 2) that the Court of Criminal Appeals er

red by imposing a se ventee n-y ear sentenc e rathe r than a six teen- y ear

sentenc e, and (3) that the impositi on of conse cutive sente nces w as er ror.

II.

B oth the Un ite d St ate s S up reme Court and thi s Co ur

t ha ve no w h e ld t

hat th e Sixth Amendment to the United State s C o nstitut ion does not require that the fa cts nec essar y for the imposit ion of

consec utive sentenc es be de termined by a jury

. Oregon v . Ice , ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S. Ct. 711 , 7 14 -1 5 ( 20 09 ); State v. Allen , 259 S.W .3d 671, 689-90 (Te nn. 2008). Ac cording ly , we have de te rm ine d th a t Mr . Y oung ’s Blakely v. W ashington challeng e to the dec isions of the trial court

a nd the Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls w ithre g a rd to h is c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s la c ks me ri t.

III

. When only

the def endant a ppeals a co n v i ct i o n and sente nce, T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35- 401(c) (2) limits the authority of t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls to aff irming, reducing , vacating, or setting a side the sentenc e imposed by the trial cour

t. Acc ording ly , the State has prope rly conce ded 2 that th e Court

of Cr imi na l App e a ls e rr e d b y inc re a sin g Mr

. You ng ’s tw o a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult

c on vic tio ns fr om s ix to s e ven y ears a nd the re by inc re a sin g his e ff

e c tiv e se nte nc e fr om s ixte e n to
se ve nte e n y e a rs

.
IV.

As a fina l matter, Mr. Young as s erts that both t he trial c ourt and the Court of Criminal A p p e a l s f a i l e d t o m a k e s u f

f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d f

i n d i n g s a s r e qu i r e d

b y State v. W

ilkerson , 905 S.W .2d-5-

933 (Ten n

. 1 9 9 5 ) and Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 115(b) ( 2006) for the impositi on of conse cutive sentenc es. We have car efully revie wed the trial court’s se ntencing finding s of fa ct, the text of the Fe bruar y 13, 2008 opinion of t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls, and the rec ord and have de termined that, viewed a s a whole, the re e x ists sufficient support for the imposit ion of consec utive sentenc es in this case.

Mr . Y oung ’s a c tio ns on

both Fe br

ua ry 25 a nd F e br ua ry 27 , 2 00 3 d e mon str a te that he is a dang er o u s o ff

en der w ith lit tle or no re g ard f or human life a

nd with litt le compunction about eng ag ing in c riminal conduct even when the risk to huma n life is high. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-115(b) (4). B y

the same toke n, consec utive sentences are wa rra nted to protec t the public from further criminal conduc t by

Mr. Young. The rec ord conta ins ample evidenc e that a sixteen-y ear
se nte nc e re a so na

bly re la te s to the se ve ri ty

of th e offe ns e s th a t Mr . Y oungc omm itt e d a nd is cong ruent with g ener al sentenc ing pr inciples.

V.

Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff

ir m th e de c isi on s o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

and the Court of Cr im in a l App e a ls requiring M r. Young to ser ve the se ntence s associate d with his crimes ag ainst Mr. Br idge s
consec utively to the s entenc es for the crimes arising from his eff orts to evade arr est on Fe bruar y 27, 2003. Howeve r, we also find that the Court of Criminal Appea ls erre d by incre asing the sentenc es fo r M r. Yo un g ’s a ssa

ult c on vic tio ns to s e ve n y e a rs a nd his e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e to s e ve nte e n y e a rs

. Acc ording ly , we modify

the judg ments to provide for c oncurr ent six -y ear sentenc es for

Mr. Young ’s assault convictions and f

or an effective se ntence of six teen y ear s and re mand the ca se to the trial court for the entry of a judg ment consistent with this opinion. Be cause Mr. Young is indigent, we tax t he costs of this appe al to the State of Te nnessee

.

______________________________ WI L L I AM C. K OC H, JR., JUST I CE