mitigating and enhancement factors in Tennessee

2018In determining the proper sentence, the trial court must consider: (1) The evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) The presentence report; (3) The principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) The nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) Evidence and information offered by the parties on the mitigating and enhancement factors set out in [Tennessee Code Annotated sections] 40-35-113 and [-]114; (6) Any statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices for simi

2017In determining the proper sentence, the trial court must consider: (1) The evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) The presentence report; -9- (3) The principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) The nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) Evidence and information offered by the parties on the mitigating and enhancement factors set out in ]Tennessee Code Annotated sections] 40-35-113 and [-]114; (6) Any statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices for

2021See Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706 n.41; State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tenn. 2001).

2016See 1 Defendant pled guilty to three counts of auto burglary, three counts of theft of property valued at more than $1000 but less than $10,000, two counts of arson, six counts of aggravated burglary, six counts of felony vandalism, three counts of misdemeanor vandalism, one count of setting fire to property/land, one count of possession of an explosive, one count of burglary, one count of attempted burglary, two counts of theft of property valued more than $500 but less than $1000, and one count of theft of property valued more than $10,000 but less than $60,000. -2- Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706 n

2012See T.C.A. § 40-35-210(e); State -9- v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tenn.1994) (“[T]he trial court must place on the record its reasons for arriving at the final sentencing decision, identify the mitigating and enhancement factors found, state the specific facts supporting each enhancement factor found, and articulate how the mitigating and enhancement factors have been evaluated and balanced in determining the sentence.”), superseded on other grounds by T.C.A. § 40-35-210(c)(Supp. 1996), as recognized in State v. Carico, 968 S.W.2d 280 , 288 n.9 (Tenn. 1998).

2007In this respect, for the purpose of meaningful appellate review, [T]he trial court must place on the record its reasons for arriving at the final sentencing decision, identify the mitigating and enhancement factors found, state the specific facts supporting each enhancement factor found, and articulate how the mitigating and enhancement factors have been evaluated and balanced in determining the sentence. -4- State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tenn. 1994) (citation omitted); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35 - 210(e) (2006).

2012In conducting our de novo review, this Court must consider the following: “(1) [t]he evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) [t]he presentence report; (3) [t]he principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) [t]he nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) [e]vidence and information offered by the parties on the mitigating and enhancement factors set out in §§ 40-35-113 and 40-35- 114; (6) [a]ny statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices for similar offen

2012The weighing of the 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).

2025The trial court is granted broad discretion to impose a sentence anywhere within the applicable range and the sentencing decision of the trial court will be upheld “so long as it is within the appropriate range and the record demonstrates that the sentence is otherwise in compliance with the purposes and principles listed by statute.” Id. at 709-10 - 11 - In determining a defendant’s sentence, the trial court is to consider the following factors: (1) the evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) the presentence report; (3) the principles of sentencing and argument

2024Even the misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor, however, “does not invalidate the sentence imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from the 1989 Act, as amended in 2005.” Id. - 17 - The trial court must consider the following when determining the appropriate sentence: (1) The evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) The presentence report; (3) The principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) The nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) Evidence and information offered by the parties on th

2013Additionally, a trial court may “apply the mitigating and enhancement factors set forth in [Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35- 113 and -114], as they are relevant to the [section] 40-35-103 considerations.” State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tenn. Crim.

2013Additionally, a trial court may “apply the mitigating and enhancement factors set forth in [Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35- 113 and -114], as they are relevant to the [section] 40-35-103 considerations.” State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tenn. Crim.

2008However, the amended code sections are inapplicable to the Defendant’s appeal. -6- arriving at the final sentencing decision, identify the mitigating and enhancement factors found, state the specific facts supporting each enhancement factor found, and articulate how the mitigating and enhancement factors have been evaluated and balanced in determining the sentence.’” State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698, 704 (2002).

2007“To facilitate appellate review, the trial court ‘must place on the record its reasons for arriving at the final sentencing decision, identify the mitigating and enhancement factors found, state the specific facts supporting each enhancement factor found, and articulate how the mitigating and enhancement factors have been evaluated and balanced in determining the sentence.’” State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698, 704 (2002).

2013T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b) (2010); see State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698, 704 (Tenn. 2002); State v. Osborne, 251 S.W.3d 1, 24 (Tenn. Crim.

2012Id. § 40-35-210(b) (2006); see also State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698, 704 (Tenn. 2002); State v. Osborne, 251 S.W.3d 1, 24 (Tenn. Crim.

2012To facilitate appellate review, the trial court must “‘state the specific facts supporting each enhancement factor found[] and articulate how the mitigating and enhancement factors have been evaluated and balanced in determining the sentence.’” State v. Poole, 945 S.W.2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997) (quoting State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 567, 601 (Tenn. 1994)).

2006In order to allow meaningful appellate review, the trial court: must place on the record its reasons for arriving at the final sentencing decision, identify the mitigating and enhancement factors found, state the specific facts supporting each enhancement factor found, and articulate how the mitigating and enhancement factors have been evaluated and balanced in determining the sentence. -6- State v. Poole, 945 S.W.2d 93, 96 (Tenn.1997) (quoting State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 601 (Tenn.1994)).

2017We are also to recognize that the defendant bears “the burden of showing that the sentence is improper.” State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). 10 In determining the proper sentence, the trial court must consider: (1) the evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) the presentence report; (3) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) evidence and information offered by the parties on the mitigating and enhancement factors set out in Tennessee Code Anno

2017We are to also recognize that the defendant bears “the burden of demonstrating that the sentence is improper.” State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). 7 In determining the proper sentence, the trial court must consider: (1) the evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) the presentence report; (3) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) evidence and information offered by the parties on the mitigating and enhancement factors set out in Tennessee Code

2012In conducting our de novo review, this Court must consider the following: “(1) [t]he evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) [t]he presentence report; (3) [t]he principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) [t]he nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) [e]vidence and information offered by the parties on the mitigating and enhancement factors set out in §§ 40-35-113 and 40-35- 114; (6) [a]ny statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices for similar offen

2012A trial court, when sentencing a defendant, must consider the following: (1) The evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) The presentence report; (3) The principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) The nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) Evidence and information offered by the parties on the mitigating and enhancement factors set out in §§ 40-35-113 and 40-35-114; (6) Any statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennesse

2026This abuse of discretion standard of review, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, also applies to a trial court’s decision regarding “probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). -6- Pursuant to the 2005 amendments to the sentencing act, a trial court must consider the following when determining whether to impose an alternative sentence: (1) The evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) The presentence report; (3) The principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) The natu

2025An abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, also applies to “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). -4- Under the Sentencing Act, trial courts are to consider the following factors when determining a defendant’s sentence and the appropriate combination of sentencing alternatives: (1) The evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) The presentence report; (3) The principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) The nature and

2010T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b) (Supp. 2001); State v. Williams, 920 S.W.2d 247, 258 (Tenn. Crim.

2009T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b) (2003); State v. Williams, 920 S.W.2d 247, 258 (Tenn. Crim.

2008App. 2000); see State v. Zeolia, 928 S.W.2d 457, 461 (Tenn. Crim.

2003Additionally, a trial court may consider the mitigating and enhancement factors set out in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-113 and -114, “as they are relevant to the [section] 40-35-103(1) considerations.” Batey, 35 S.W.3d at 588 ; see State v. Zeolia, 928 S.W.2d 457, 461 (Tenn. Crim.

2005“To facilitate appellate review, the trial court ‘must place on the record its reasons for arriving at the final sentencing decision, identify the mitigating and enhancement factors found, state the specific facts supporting each enhancement factor found, and articulate how the mitigating and enhancement factors have been evaluated and balanced in determining the sentence.” State v. Poole, 945 S.W.2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997) (quoting State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 601 (Tenn. 1994)); see also State v. Ervin, 939 S.W.2d 581, 584 (Tenn. Crim.

2005As our supreme court has explained, “To facilitate appellate review, the trial court ‘must place on the record its reasons for arriving at the final sentencing decision, identify the mitigating and enhancement factors found, state the specific facts supporting each enhancement factor found, and articulate how the mitigating and enhancement factors have been evaluated and balanced in determining the sentence.’” State v. Poole, 945 S.W.2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997) (quoting State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 601 (Tenn. 1994)); see also State v. Ervin, 939 S.W.2d 581, 584 (Tenn. Crim.

2006T.C.A. § 40-35-210(f) (2003); State v. Martin, 146 S.W.3d 64, 69 (Tenn. 2004).

2006T.C.A. § 40-35-210(f) (2003); State v. Martin, 146 S.W.3d 64, 69 (Tenn. Crim.

2000Boggs, 932 S.W.2d at 476 (citing State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 238 (Tenn. 1986)).

2000State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 240 (Tenn. 1986).

2012See T.C.A. § 40-35-210(e); State -9- v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tenn.1994) (“[T]he trial court must place on the record its reasons for arriving at the final sentencing decision, identify the mitigating and enhancement factors found, state the specific facts supporting each enhancement factor found, and articulate how the mitigating and enhancement factors have been evaluated and balanced in determining the sentence.”), superseded on other grounds by T.C.A. § 40-35-210(c)(Supp. 1996), as recognized in State v. Carico, 968 S.W.2d 280 , 288 n.9 (Tenn. 1998).

2009State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tenn. 1994), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Carico, 968 S.W.2d 280, 288-89 (Tenn. 1998). -16- In this case, Gwin was sentenced as Range I, violent offender.

2022She asserts that because her sentence was excessive and inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the relevant statutes, this court “should reduce the sentences for each count to the minimum of the sentencing range.” In addition, without fully considering the holding in Bise, the Defendant claims the trial court failed to “state the specific facts supporting each enhancement factor found” and failed to “articulate how the mitigating and enhancement factors ha[d] been evaluated and balanced in determining the sentence.” State v. Winfield, 23 S.W.3d 279, 283 (Tenn. 2000).

2016See State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 863 (Tenn. 2013). - 34 - Pursuant to the 2005 amendments, a trial court must consider the following when determining a defendant‘s specific sentence and the appropriate combination of sentencing alternatives: (1) The evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) The presentence report; (3) The principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) The nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) Evidence and information offered by the parties on the mitigating and enhancement factors set out

2013Cf. Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d at 168 (listing “(a) the accused’s amenability to correction, (b) the circumstances of the offense, (c) the accused’s criminal record, (d) the accused’s social history, (e) the status of the accused’s physical and mental health, and (f) the deterrence value to the accused as well as others”) with T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b) (listing “(1) [t]he evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) [t]he presentence report; (3) [t]he principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) [t]he nature and characteristics of the criminal cond

2013See id.

2006Presumptive sentence for a class A felony shall be the mid point of the range if there are no enhancement or mitigating factors. .... 2 W e note that the Tennessee Supreme Court has determined that despite the ability of trial judges to set sentences above the presumptive sentence based on the finding of enhancement factors neither found by a jury or admitted by a defendant, Tennessee’s sentencing structure does not violate the Sixth Amendment and does not conflict with the holdings of Blakely v. W ashington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), U nited States v. Booker, 543U.S. 220 (2005), or United States v

2003State v. Carter, 908 S.W.2d 410, 412 (Tenn. Crim.

2001See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102 , -103, -210; State v. Brewer, 875 S.W.2d 298, 302 (Tenn. Crim.

2000State v. Lavender, 967 S.W.2d 803, 807 (Tenn. 1998) (quoting State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 601 (Tenn. 1994)).