Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-101 (2026)
Short title
✓ current as of May 2026
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989."
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 156
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986).
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “The term “sentencing principles” refers to the preceding provisions of the Act, T.C.A. §§ 40-35-101 through 40-35-112. These procedural requirements not only provide additional guidance to and restraint *238 on the exercise of the sentencing court’s discretion but they…”
Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992). “Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-101 to -35-504 (1990 & Supp.”
Terrance Lavar Davis v. State of Tennessee, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2010). “Range Classification Under the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-101 to -505 (2006 & Supp.”
State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. 1998). “Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-209(c) is part of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-101 et seq. (1990).”
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991). “On November 15, 1989, appellant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to two terms of three years in the Department of Corrections and fined $750 on each of seven counts and 30 days in jail and fined $50 on another count. The Court of Criminal Appeals, in affirming the…”
State v. Hutchison, 898 S.W.2d 161 (Tenn. 1994). “T.C.A. § 40-35-101 confirms this conclusion.”
State v. Butler, 108 S.W.3d 845 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-101 (1997). In determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, the trial court considered the mitigating factor that the "defendant's criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury.”
Shorts v. Bartholomew, 278 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. 2009). “” The problem is that the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-101 through — 505 (2006) (“the Sentencing Act”), under which Plaintiff was sentenced, does not provide for Plaintiffs felony sentences to be served in the TDOC.”
State v. Alder, 71 S.W.3d 299 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “Excessive Sentencing In his final issue, the Defendant claims that the trial court improperly applied the sentencing requirements in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-101, et. seq., and improperly ordered the sentences in this case to run consecutively to a companion case.”
State v. Bryant, 805 S.W.2d 762 (Tenn. 1991). “For crimes committed after July 1, 1982, the Reform Act provided for an appellate review of most sentencing determinations for both the defendant and the State.”
Danny A. Stewart v. Derrick D. Schofield, Comm'r, Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 368 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2012). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-101 to -505 (2010 & Supp.”
State v. Harris, 844 S.W.2d 601 (Tenn. 1992). “Sentencing provisions are codified at T.C.A. §§ 40-35-101 to 504 (1990 & Supp. 1991).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-101(1)(b) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Hugh Everret Burt (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-101(2003) — 1 case
Dewayne Cathey v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-101(b) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Leroy Nevils (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-101(d) — 1 case
State v. Gregory, 862 S.W.2d 574 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-101(i)(l) — 1 case
Joe Mosley v. State of Tennessee, 475 S.W.3d 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.