Bise standard in Tennessee

2026The Bise standard applies to all sentencing decisions, State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014), including “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence,” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 279 (Tenn. 2012), and when reviewing misdemeanor sentencing decisions,2 State v. Ruiz, 716 S.W.3d 439 , 455 (Tenn. Crim.

2026The Bise standard applies to all sentencing decisions, State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014), including “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence,” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 279 (Tenn. 2012), and when reviewing misdemeanor sentencing decisions,2 State v. Ruiz, 716 S.W.3d 439 , 455 (Tenn. Crim.

2026State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013) (applying the Bise standard of review to consecutive sentencing).

2026State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013) (applying the Bise standard of review to consecutive sentencing).

2026The Bise standard applies to all sentencing decisions, State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014), including “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence,” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 279 (Tenn. 2012), and when reviewing misdemeanor sentencing decisions,2 State v. Ruiz, 716 S.W.3d 439 , 455 (Tenn. Crim.

2026The Bise standard applies to all sentencing decisions, State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014), including “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence,” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 279 (Tenn. 2012), and when reviewing misdemeanor sentencing decisions,2 State v. Ruiz, 716 S.W.3d 439 , 455 (Tenn. Crim.

2026State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013) (applying the Bise standard of review to consecutive sentencing).

2026State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013) (applying the Bise standard of review to consecutive sentencing).

2025Under the Bise standard of review, when the trial court “considers the Parker and Electroplating factors, specifically identifies the relevant factors, and places on the record its reasons for granting or denying judicial diversion,” this court “must apply a presumption of reasonableness and uphold the grant or denial so long as there is any substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision.” Id. at 327 .

2025Under the Bise standard of review, when the trial court “considers the Parker and Electroplating factors, specifically identifies the relevant factors, and places on the record its reasons for granting or denying judicial diversion,” this court “must apply a presumption of reasonableness and uphold the grant or denial so long as there is any substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision.” Id. at 327 .

2021However, the court made clear that the application of the Bise standard of review does not abrogate the common law factors for judicial diversion set out in State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim.

2021However, the court made clear that the application of the Bise standard of review does not abrogate the common law factors for judicial diversion set out in State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim.

2024Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40 - 35-104, -302(b); State v. Cooper, 336 S.W.3d 522, 524 (Tenn. 2011) (per curiam); State v. Palmer, 902 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tenn. 1995).

2024Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40 - 35-104, -302(b); State v. Cooper, 336 S.W.3d 522, 524 (Tenn. 2011) (per curiam); State v. Palmer, 902 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tenn. 1995).

2024Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40 - 35-104, -302(b); State v. Cooper, 336 S.W.3d 522, 524 (Tenn. 2011) (per curiam); State v. Palmer, 902 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tenn. 1995).

2024Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40 - 35-104, -302(b); State v. Cooper, 336 S.W.3d 522, 524 (Tenn. 2011) (per curiam); State v. Palmer, 902 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tenn. 1995).

2013It noted the Defendant’s “[un]willingness to lead a productive life,” that the Defendant had “been in prison most of his life,” and that he had resorted to criminal activity “in furtherance of his anti-societal lifestyle.” 16 Because we find that the Bise standard applies to the review of consecutive sentencing, we are led to question the continuing vitality of the requirements for additional findings mandated by Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d at 939 , when a trial court imposes consecutive sentences based on the dangerous offender factor.

2013It noted the Defendant’s “[un]willingness to lead a productive life,” that the Defendant had “been in prison most of his life,” and that he had resorted to criminal activity “in furtherance of his anti-societal lifestyle.” 16 Because we find that the Bise standard applies to the review of consecutive sentencing, we are led to question the continuing vitality of the requirements for additional findings mandated by Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d at 939 , when a trial court imposes consecutive sentences based on the dangerous offender factor.

2026State v. Johnson, 15 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tenn. Crim.

2026State v. Johnson, 15 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tenn. Crim.

2020A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)). - 18 - The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the Bise standard applies to consecutive sentencing determinations “if [the trial court] has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds” for discretionary consecutive sentencing.

2020A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)). - 18 - The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the Bise standard applies to consecutive sentencing determinations “if [the trial court] has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds” for discretionary consecutive sentencing.

2020A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)). - 18 - The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the Bise standard applies to consecutive sentencing determinations “if [the trial court] has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds” for discretionary consecutive sentencing.

2020A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)). - 18 - The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the Bise standard applies to consecutive sentencing determinations “if [the trial court] has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds” for discretionary consecutive sentencing.

2017As clearly stated in King, “the trial court is not required to recite all of the Parker and Electroplating factors when justifying its decision on the record in order to obtain the presumption of reasonableness” so long as the record reflects that the trial court considered the factors and identified those relevant to the case before it. 432 S.W.3d at 327 ; see also Dycus, 456 S.W.3d at 930 .

2017Under the Bise standard of review, “a trial court’s decision to grant or deny probation will not be invalidated unless the trial court wholly departed from the relevant statutory considerations in reaching its determination.” State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Tenn. 2014) (order) (per curiam).

2017Under the Bise standard of review, “a trial court’s decision to grant or deny probation will not be invalidated unless the trial court wholly departed from the relevant statutory considerations in reaching its determination.” State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Tenn. 2014) (order) (per curiam).

2012See State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008). -11- Our supreme court recently held that the Bise standard of review is also applicable to “ questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Christine Caudle, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___, No. M2010-01172-SC-R11-CD, 2012 WL 5907374, at *5 (Tenn. Nov. 27, 2012).

2012See State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008). -11- Our supreme court recently held that the Bise standard of review is also applicable to “ questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Christine Caudle, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___, No. M2010-01172-SC-R11-CD, 2012 WL 5907374, at *5 (Tenn. Nov. 27, 2012).