Range I standard (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

Range I standard in Tennessee

19 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2017 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.

Followed or applied (10)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Cartergreen
tenn · 2008 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2011–2017
2 sentences

2017See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-605 (b)(1), (c)(2) (2015) (a person who knowingly escapes the lawful custody of a law enforcement officer is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111 (e)(1) (2015). - 12 - While the Defendant argues that the trial court should have ordered a lesser sentence because the trial court found that more mitigating factors applied to this conviction than enhancement factors, “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 at 345 .

2011T.C.A. § 40-35-401(d) (2006); Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 343 . 3 The Defendant is a Range I standard offender, and possession of a Schedule II (4.4 grams of cocaine) controlled substance with intent to deliver is a Class B felony.

12
State v. Pritchettgreen
tenn · 1981 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010See State v. Pritc hett, 621 S.W.2d 127, 135 (Tenn. 1981).

11
Bland v. Dukesgreen
tenncrimapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006See Bland v. Dukes, 97 S.W.3d 133, 134 (Tenn. Crim.

11
Hicks v. Stategreen
tenn · 1997 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006In Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tenn. 1997), the petitioner pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and agreed to a hybrid sentence involving a Range II length of incarceration (ten years) as a Range I standard offender.

2006The court concluded that the hybrid sentence was permissible under the 1989 Sentencing Act, holding that “a knowing and voluntary guilty plea waives any irregularity as to offender classification or release eligibility.” Id.

11
State v. Bennettgreen
tenncrimapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
1 sentence

2004A. Waiver “When an accused seeks appellate review of an issue in this court, it is the duty of the accused to prepare a record which conveys a fair, accurate and complete account of what transpired with respect to the issues which form the basis of the appeal.” State v. Bennett, 798 S.W.2d 783, 789 (Tenn. Crim.

11
State v. Lanegreen
tenn · 1999 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456, 462 (Tenn. 1999).

11
State v. Grissomgreen
tenncrimapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102 (5)-(6); see also State v. Grissom, 956 S.W.2d 514, 519 (Tenn. Crim.

11
State v. Hicksgreen
tenncrimapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000We do not find that the record supports a conclusion that the defendant was a leader in the offense, see, e.g., State v. Hicks, 868 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Tenn. Crim.

11
State v. Davisgreen
tenncrimapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000See State v. Davis, 825 S.W.2d 109 (Tenn. Crim.

11
State v. Mossgreen
tenn · 1986 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000See § 40-35- 112(2) -2- Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210 sentencing comm'n cmts.; State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 237 (Tenn. 1986).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Blakely v. Washington green
scotus · 2004
2 sentences

2012He also contends that the imposition of partial consecutive sentencing violated his constitutional rights as provided in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

2010The appellant filed a timely motion for new trial and an amended motion for new trial in which he argued that the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to the weight of the controlled substance, the evidence was not sufficient to uphold the jury verdict, the appellant’s sentence was set in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and the trial court “should recuse itself from any further proceedings in this matter . . . [because the trial court], in his capacity as District Attorney, handled a matter involving Defendant . . . wherein Defendant entered a guilty plea for v

32004–2012
Apprendi v. New Jersey green
scotus · 2000
1 sentence

2012He also contends that the imposition of partial consecutive sentencing violated his constitutional rights as provided in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

12012–2012
State v. Wilkerson green
tenn · 1995
1 sentence

2010The court found that the defendant was “a danger to this community” based on his conduct during the commission of the offenses and that he “ha[d] not demonstrated an ability to be rehabilitated.” Citing State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995), the court found that an “aggregate sentence [was] necessary to protect the public.” The court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to five years for robbery and four years for kidnapping and ordered him to serve the sentences consecutively in the Tennessee Department of Correction.

12010–2010
State v. Smith green
tenncrimapp · 1987
1 sentence

2005Id. §§ 40-35-112(a)(4) and (5).

12005–2005
State v. Cook green
tenn · 1991
1 sentence

1998Relying on our Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Cook, 816 S.W.2d 322 (Tenn. 1991), the defendant asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because of this misinformation provided to the jury.

11998–1998
Batson v. Kentucky green
scotus · 1986
1 sentence

1996On appeal, the appellant argues (a) that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict, (b) that a prospective juror was improperly removed by the prosecution in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), (c) that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, and (d) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial.

11996–1996
Crump v. State green
tenncrimapp · 1984
1 sentence

1990In Crump v. State, 672 S.W.2d 226 (Tenn.Crim.App.1984), this court held that the state was not required to file notice of its intention to seek enhanced punishment when the defendant had actual notice of the state’s intent to seek Range II punishment.

11990–1990

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (10) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (7) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114 (7) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102 (6) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-112 (5) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (5) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (4) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-303 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check