State of Tennessee v. Joey Godwin-Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the trial court did not err by ordering consecutive sentences in this case. I agree with the majority that the trial judge in this case recited his reasons for imposing consecutive sentences and that the ruling is therefore entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See State v. James Allen Pollard, -- S.W.3d --, No. M2011-00332-SC-R11-CD, 2013 WL 6732667, at *7-9 (Tenn. Dec. 20, 2013). “So long as a trial court properly articulates reasons for ordering consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the sentences will be presumed reasonable and, absent an abuse of discretion, upheld on appeal.” Id. at *9 (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1) (“The order [for consecutive sentences] shall specify the reasons for this decision and is reviewable on appeal.”)); see also State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 705 (Tenn. 2012). I agree as well that the record supports the trial judge’s determination that appellant’s record of criminal activity is extensive pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)(2). That, however, in my opinion does not end our inquiry.