State v. Pollard

To impose a consecutive sentence based on the dangerous offender classification the court must address the factors required by statute on the record.

The defendant was convicted of felony murder, first degree premeditated murder, and

especially aggravated robbery. After merging the murder convictions, the trial court imposed

consecutive sentences of life for the murder and eighteen years for the especially aggravated

robbery. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded

to the trial court for a proper determination of whether the sentences should be served

consecutively or concurrently. We hold that, when a trial court places findings on the record

to support its sentencing decision, the applicable standard of appellate review for a challenge

to the imposition of consecutive sentences is abuse of discretion with a presumption of

reasonableness. Because, however, the trial court failed to address the factors required to

impose consecutive sentences based on the dangerous offender classification, we affirm the

judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand to the trial court for a new sentencing

hearing. To read the case in detail, click here.