appealable error (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

appealable error in Tennessee

17 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2026 4 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 (5)

CaseFollowedCited
State of Tennessee v. James D. Woodengreen
tenn · 2015 · cited in 9 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2016–2026
2 sentences

2026See State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 595 (Tenn. 2015) (attacking the methodology by which a trial court imposed sentence is an appealable error and does not -3- render a sentence illegal); see also State v. Cantrell, 346 S.W.2d 445, 450-52 (Tenn. 2011).

2018A trial court’s misapplication of enhancing and mitigating factors, however, is considered an appealable error that can only be “addressed on direct appeal and not in a post-conviction or habeas corpus proceeding.” Id. at 451 ; State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 595-96 (Tenn. 2015). “‘[A]ttacks on the correctness of the methodology by which a trial court imposed [a] sentence’ will not rise to the level of an illegal sentence.” State v. Joseph B.

69
David CANTRELL v. Joe EASTERLING, Wardengreen
tenn · 2011 · cited in 7 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2024
2 sentences

2018A trial court’s misapplication of enhancing and mitigating factors, however, is considered an appealable error that can only be “addressed on direct appeal and not in a post-conviction or habeas corpus proceeding.” Id. at 451 ; State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 595-96 (Tenn. 2015). “‘[A]ttacks on the correctness of the methodology by which a trial court imposed [a] sentence’ will not rise to the level of an illegal sentence.” State v. Joseph B.

2017This court has recently stated, in State v. David Reed, that “a trial court’s failure to award post-judgment jail credits at the time it revokes a defendant’s probation may be an appealable error,” although it does not render the sentence illegal. 2016 WL 1223409 , at *2 (citing State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200, 208 (Tenn. 2015)); see also Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 449-52 (Tenn. 2011) (discussing the difference between clerical errors, appealable errors, and fatal errors).

37
State of Tennessee v. Adrian R. Browngreen
tenn · 2015 · cited in 4 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2016–2024
2 sentences

2024An appealable error “generally involve[s] attacks on the correctness of the methodology the trial court used to impose sentence.” Brown, 479 S.W.3d at 208 .

2017This court has recently stated, in State v. David Reed, that “a trial court’s failure to award post-judgment jail credits at the time it revokes a defendant’s probation may be an appealable error,” although it does not render the sentence illegal. 2016 WL 1223409 , at *2 (citing State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200, 208 (Tenn. 2015)); see also Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 449-52 (Tenn. 2011) (discussing the difference between clerical errors, appealable errors, and fatal errors).

34
House v. Closegreen
tennctapp · 1961 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026See State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 595 (Tenn. 2015) (attacking the methodology by which a trial court imposed sentence is an appealable error and does not -3- render a sentence illegal); see also State v. Cantrell, 346 S.W.2d 445, 450-52 (Tenn. 2011).

11
Stubbs v. Stategreen
tenn · 1965 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See Stubbs v. State, 216 Tenn. 567 , 393 S.W.2d 150, 154 (1965).

2015See Stubbs v. State, 216 Tenn. 567 , 393 S.W.2d 150, 154 (1965).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-23-101 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501 (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.

Where else courts name it

TN 17 (2014–2026) PA 4 (2018–2021) CA 3 (2005–2026) MI 3 (2022–2023) TX 2 (2009–2021) OH 2 (2018–2025)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check