143 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2019 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. Cartergreen2 sentences2019State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 345 (Tenn. 2008). 2018Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 345 (citing State v. Devin Banks, No. W2005-02213-CCA-R3-DD, 2007 WL 1966039 , at *48 (Tenn. Crim. | 8 | 15 |
State v. Mossgreen2 sentences2001See Moss, 727 S.W.2d at 235 . 2000See Moss, 727 S.W.2d at 235 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ashbygreen2 sentences2012Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-103 (5), -210(b); Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169 . 2012T.C.A. §§ 40-35-103(5), -210(b); Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169 . | 1 | 120 |
State v. Gosnellgreen1 sentence2017Although “[o]ur sentencing act is -6- designed to eliminate unjustified disparity in sentencing and provide for consistent treatment of defendants,” “each defendant must be viewed individually with regard to the enhancing and mitigating factors applicable to that defendant.” State v. Gosnell, 62 S.W.3d 740, 750 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Banksgreen1 sentence2014As this court has repeatedly cautioned, however, “[m]ere disagreement with how the trial court weighed enhancing and mitigating factors is not an adequate basis for reversing a sentence.” State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 146 (Tenn. 2008) (citing Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 345-46 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sheltongreen1 sentence2000See Shelton, 854 S.W.2d at 123 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence1997State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tenn. 1994). | 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 of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise
green
2 sentences2018See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (b), (e); Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705-06 . 2014Despite our adoption of a more deferential standard of review in Bise , we have continued to emphasize the need for trial courts to “place on the record, either orally or in writing, what enhancement or mitigating factors were considered, if any, as well as the reasons for the sentence, in order to ensure fair and consistent sentencing.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705 -06 n. 41 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e)). | 2 | 2014–2018 |
State v. Bonestel
green
1 sentence2009Finally, “a trial court should not deny judicial diversion without explaining both the specific reasons supporting the denial and why those factors applicable to the denial of diversion outweigh other factors for consideration.” Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d at 344 (citing Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d at 168 ). -5- At sentencing, the record shows the trial court engaged in a lengthy discussion weighing the enhancing and mitigating factors applicable to Tate. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Cutshaw
green
1 sentence2009Finally, “a trial court should not deny judicial diversion without explaining both the specific reasons supporting the denial and why those factors applicable to the denial of diversion outweigh other factors for consideration.” Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d at 344 (citing Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d at 168 ). -5- At sentencing, the record shows the trial court engaged in a lengthy discussion weighing the enhancing and mitigating factors applicable to Tate. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.