Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Birgegreen2 sentences2018App. Nov. 10, 1999) (citing State v. Adams, 788 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1990)), no perm. app. filed. “[A] trial judge may consider enhancement factors notwithstanding the fact the district attorney general does not file a notice of enhancement factors” because Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202(b)(1) is “permissive.” State v. Birge, 792 S.W.2d 723, 726 (Tenn. Crim. 1999State v. Birge, 792 S.W.2d 723, 726 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Clarence Nesbit v. State of Tennesseegreen1 sentence2017See Nesbit, 452 S.W.3d at 800-01 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2015Although the second notice was untimely, the “remedy for untimely notice is the option of a continuance for -9- the defense, not preclusion of the State from seeking enhanced punishment.” State v. Thompson, 36 S.W.3d 102, 115 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences2018App. Nov. 10, 1999) (citing State v. Adams, 788 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1990)), no perm. app. filed. “[A] trial judge may consider enhancement factors notwithstanding the fact the district attorney general does not file a notice of enhancement factors” because Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202(b)(1) is “permissive.” State v. Birge, 792 S.W.2d 723, 726 (Tenn. Crim. 2013Cf. State v. Adams, 788 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1990); see State v. Bobby Joe Strader, No. 03C01-9812-CR-00425 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2013–2018 |
State v. Ashby
green
2 sentences2025The State filed a notice of enhancement factors asserting that the defendant’s sentence should be enhanced based on: (1) the defendant’s previous history of unwillingness to comply with the conditions of a sentence involving release in the community as supported by the defendant’s Tipton County Juvenile Court records, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-114(8); (2) the defendant’s use of a gun in the commission of the offense, id. section 40-35-114(9); (3) the defendant’s commission of the offense while released on bond in February 2020 Tipton County and April 2020 Obion County cases, id. s 2025The State filed a notice of enhancement factors asserting that the defendant’s sentence should be enhanced based on: (1) the defendant’s previous history of unwillingness to comply with the conditions of a sentence involving release in the community as supported by the defendant’s Tipton County Juvenile Court records, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-114(8); (2) the defendant’s use of a gun in the commission of the offense, id. section 40-35-114(9); (3) the defendant’s commission of the offense while released on bond in February 2020 Tipton County and April 2020 Obion County cases, id. s | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.