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.
24 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2014 0 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. Boggsgreen2 sentences2009To begin our review of the trial court’s consideration of mitigating factors, we recognize that a defendant’s “sentence is not determined by the mathematical process of adding the sum total of enhancing factors present then subtracting from this figure the mitigating factors present for a net number of years.” State v. Boggs, 932 S.W.2d 467, 475 (Tenn. Crim. 2004It fails because a defendant’s “sentence is not determined by the mathematical process of adding the sum total of enhancing factors present then subtracting from this figure the mitigating factors present for a net number of years.” State v. Boggs, 932 S.W.2d 467, 475 (Tenn. Crim. | 23 | 24 |
State v. Aldergreen2 sentences2014Nevertheless, the appellant implores this court to “reexamine its stance on this issue.” He argues that the trial court should have attributed more weight to mitigating factor (1), contending that “[f]undamental fairness should require that mitigating factors are exercised in the reduction of sentences to the same degree that enhancement factors are exercised in the increase of sentences.” -5- This court has repeatedly held that a “‘sentence is not determined by the mathematical process of adding the sum total of enhancing factors present then subtracting from this figure the mitigating factor 2013However, this court has repeatedly stated that a “‘sentence is not determined by the mathematical process of adding the sum total of enhancing factors present then subtracting from this figure the mitigating factors present for a net number of years.’” State v. Alder, 71 S.W.3d 299, 306 (Tenn. Crim. | 19 | 19 |
State v. Mossgreen1 sentence1999Rather, the weight to be afforded an existing factor is left to the trial court's discretion so long as the court complies with the purposes and principles of the 1989 Sentencing Act and its findings are adequately supported by the record. . . . 'The Legislature has provided for only ranges within which a determinate sentence will be imposed and has not chosen to assign any controlling value to these mitigating and enhancement factors in how they are weighed in determining where within the appropriate range a particular defendant's sentence should fall.' Id. at 475-76 (quoting State v. Moss, 7 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.