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.
27 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2025 3 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 of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bisegreen2 sentences2025Although the trial court did not explicitly state the weight given to each enhancement factor or expressly discuss the mitigating factor raised in the defendant’s notice, we reiterate that the statutory enhancement and mitigating factors are advisory only and that “a trial court’s weighing of various mitigating and enhancement factors [is] left to the trial court’s sound discretion.” Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 345 (Tenn. 2008); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706 . 2024Furthermore, though the Appellant argues that the trial court failed to properly consider the mitigating factors, we note that the statutory enhancement and mitigating factors are advisory only and that “a trial court’s weighing of various mitigating and enhancement factors [is] left to the trial court’s sound discretion.” State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 345 (Tenn. 2008); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706 . | 15 | 16 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2025Although the trial court did not explicitly state the weight given to each enhancement factor or expressly discuss the mitigating factor raised in the defendant’s notice, we reiterate that the statutory enhancement and mitigating factors are advisory only and that “a trial court’s weighing of various mitigating and enhancement factors [is] left to the trial court’s sound discretion.” Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 345 (Tenn. 2008); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706 . 2024Furthermore, though the Appellant argues that the trial court failed to properly consider the mitigating factors, we note that the statutory enhancement and mitigating factors are advisory only and that “a trial court’s weighing of various mitigating and enhancement factors [is] left to the trial court’s sound discretion.” State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 345 (Tenn. 2008); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706 . | 13 | 22 |
State of Tennessee v. Christine Caudlegreen1 sentence2022In State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012), the supreme court explicitly held “that the abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to within-range sentences that reflect a decision based upon the purposes and principles of sentencing, including the questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” Here, the record demonstrates that the trial court carefully considered all of the evidence, the statutory enhancement and mitigating factors, and the purposes and principles of sentencing before rejecting Defendant’s request fo | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Bookergreen2 sentences2010See Booker, 543 U.S. at 253-254 , 125 S. Ct. at 761 (noting that the retention of advisory sentencing guidelines in the federal sentencing structure recognizes that “uniformity does not consist simply of similar sentences for those convicted of violations of the same statute . . . [but] more importantly, of similar relationships between sentences and real conduct”). 2010See Booker, 543 U.S. at 253-254 , 125 S. Ct. at 761 (noting that the retention of advisory sentencing guidelines in the federal sentencing structure recognizes that “uniformity does not consist simply of similar sentences for those convicted of violations of the same statute . . . [but] more importantly, of similar relationships between sentences and real conduct”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zeoliagreen1 sentence2010In evaluating the presumption, the trial court may “look to evidence or information offered by the parties on the statutory enhancement and mitigating factors” and “should take into account the potential or lack of potential for a defendant’s rehabilitation.” Grissom, 956 S.W.2d at 519 ; see also State v. Zeolia, 928 S.W.2d 457, 461 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Creasygreen1 sentence1999See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-302 ; State v. Creasy, 885 S.W.2d 829, 832 (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. Grissom
green
1 sentence2010In evaluating the presumption, the trial court may “look to evidence or information offered by the parties on the statutory enhancement and mitigating factors” and “should take into account the potential or lack of potential for a defendant’s rehabilitation.” Grissom, 956 S.W.2d at 519 ; see also State v. Zeolia, 928 S.W.2d 457, 461 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.