State of Tennessee v. Jarvis T. Emerson

Jarvis T. Emerson, Defendant, appeals from his convictions for attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated burglary, three counts of assault, two counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and two counts of felon in possession of a firearm. He received an effective sentence of fifty-five years. Defendant argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions because the State failed to establish his identity; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the assault charges because the proof did not show the victims reasonably feared imminent bodily injury; (3) the evidence was insufficient to show Defendant was previously convicted of a felony; (4) the conviction for especially aggravated burglary should be reduced to aggravated burglary because the State relied on serious bodily injury to prosecute both the attempted first degree murder and especially aggravated burglary convictions; (5) the trial court erred in ordering partial consecutive sentencing by failing to find the required State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 939 (Tenn. 1995), factors; (6) the State failed to prove Defendant was a Range II, multiple offender; and (7) Apprendi mandates that the jury find beyond a reasonable doubt the serious bodily injury enhancement for attempted first degree murder and that this requirement makes the enhancement for attempted first degree murder the “functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense.” After a thorough review, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that serious bodily injury is not an element of attempted first degree murder, such that a prosecution for both attempted first degree murder and especially aggravated burglary are prohibited by statute. We also determine Defendant has waived any challenge under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and any challenge to his offender classification. However, we remand for a new sentencing hearing because the trial court failed to make the requisite findings before ordering partial consecutive sentencing. Accordingly, Defendant’s convictions are affirmed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for a hearing on the manner of service of the sentences.