presumption of reasonableness standard in Tennessee

2026The abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard is applied to decisions regarding the length, range and manner of service of a sentence, including the trial court’s decision regarding consecutive sentencing “so long as [the sentence] is within the appropriate range and the record demonstrates that the sentence is otherwise in compliance with the purposes and principles listed by statute.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709-10 ; State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013) (applying deferential Bise standard of review to consecutive sentencing decisions).

2025I disagree with the majority’s adherence to the abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard for its review of the Defendant’s range determination issue.1 See State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012) (holding that an appeal of a trial court’s determination regarding the length of a defendant’s sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with a presumption of reasonableness if the sentence is within the statutory range for the offense); see also State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Tenn. 2013) (applying the Bise standard to an appeal of the imposition of consecut

2025I disagree with the majority’s adherence to the abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard for its review of the Defendant’s range determination issue.1 See State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012) (holding that an appeal of a trial court’s determination regarding the length of a defendant’s sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with a presumption of reasonableness if the sentence is within the statutory range for the offense); see also State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Tenn. 2013) (applying the Bise standard to an appeal of the imposition of consecut

2017“The abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard of review . . . also applies to a trial court’s decision to grant or deny probation.” Caudle, 388 S.W.3d at 278-79 . -7- As to the length of his sentence, the Defendant does not dispute his Range I, Standard Offender status, which subjected him to a sentencing range of eight to twelve years.

2022State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014); see State v. Sue Ann Christopher, No. E2012-01090- CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 1088341 , at *6-8 (Tenn. Crim.

2021King, 432 S.W.3d at 324 ; see State v. Sue Ann Christopher, No. E2012-01090-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 1088341 , at *6-8 (Tenn. Crim.

2026The abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard is applied to decisions regarding the length, range and manner of service of a sentence “so long as [the sentence] is within the appropriate range and the record demonstrates that the sentence is otherwise in compliance with the purposes and principles listed by statute.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709-10 .

2026The abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard is applied to decisions regarding the length, range and manner of service of a sentence, including the trial court’s decision regarding consecutive sentencing “so long as [the sentence] is within the appropriate range and the record demonstrates that the sentence is otherwise in compliance with the purposes and principles listed by statute.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709-10 ; State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013) (applying deferential Bise standard of review to consecutive sentencing decisions).

2025Instead, Defendant alleges that the trial court erred in finding that he is “a dangerous offender whose behavior indicates little or no regard for 2 The State argues in a footnote in its brief that “State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 2005), was incorrectly decided and should be overturned.” Our supreme court has recognized that the application of an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard of review when considering consecutive sentencing based upon the “dangerous offender” category in Code section 40-35-115(b)(4) does not eliminate the requirements in Wilkerson

2025Furthermore, Defendant does not challenge the trial court’s finding that he was sentenced “for an offense committed while on probation” as a basis for the trial court’s discretionary imposition of consecutive 1 The State argues in a footnote in its brief that “State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 2005), was incorrectly decided and should be overturned.” Our supreme court has recognized that the application of an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard of review when considering consecutive sentencing based upon the “dangerous offender” category in Code section 40

2024See id.; State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456, 460-61 (Tenn. 1999); State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 937-38 (Tenn. 1995). - 13 - We review the trial court’s order of consecutive sentencing under the same Bise abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard by which we review its other sentencing determinations.

2017State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991); see T.C.A. §§ 40-35-103 (2014), -210 (2014); see also T.C.A. § 40-35-102 (2014). -7- The abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard also applies to the imposition of consecutive sentences.

2016Relying on Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d 461, 472 (Tenn. 2010), the defendant asserts that sex offender registration is a collateral consequence and not a material part of her sentence.