Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (2026)
Sentencing considerations
✓ current as of May 2026
To implement the purposes of this chapter, the following principles apply:
- (1) Sentences involving confinement should be based on the following considerations:
- (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct;
- (B) Confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense or confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses; or
- (C) Measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant;
- (2) The sentence imposed should be no greater than that deserved for the offense committed;
- (3) Inequalities in sentences that are unrelated to a purpose of this chapter should be avoided;
- (4) The sentence imposed should be the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed;
- (5) The potential or lack of potential for the rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant should be considered in determining the sentence alternative or length of a term to be imposed. The length of a term of probation may reflect the length of a treatment or rehabilitation program in which participation is a condition of the sentence;
- (6) Trial judges are encouraged to use alternatives to incarceration that include requirements of reparation, victim compensation, community service or all of these; and
- (7) Available community-based alternatives to confinement and the benefits that imposing such alternatives may provide to the community should be considered when the offense is nonviolent and the defendant is the primary caregiver of a dependent child.
Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 309,s 1, eff. 7/1/2019.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,158
cases (360 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). “§ 40-35-102, are implemented by the sentencing considerations found in T.C.A. § 40-35-103. These considerations embody the controlling principles for reaching the sentencing decision in a particular case.”
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (1982) (repealed).”
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991). “§ 40-35-402(d), requires application of the sentencing principles stated in T.C.A. § 40-35-103 to the facts and circumstances in the record deemed relevant by T.”
State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). “The sentencing considerations contained in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (Supp.1989) are neither “enhancement factors” nor “mitigating factors” as those terms are used in § 40-35-210.”
State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. 1998). “§ 40-35-102 (noting considerations used in determining whether confinement shall be imposed); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (setting forth *274 considerations to be used when issuing sentencing of confinement).”
State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-103 and 210. The appellant committed extremely aggravated offenses within the meaning of T.”
State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Guidance as to what constitutes evidence to the contrary may be found in the following sentencing considerations codified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103 : (1) Sentences involving confinement should be based on the following considerations: (A) Confinement is necessary to protect…”
State v. Fields, 40 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2001). “” Guidance as to what constitutes evidence to the contrary may be found in the following sentencing considerations contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103(1) (1997): (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history…”
State v. Zeolia, 928 S.W.2d 457 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “Evidence to the contrary may include the following sentencing considerations, codified in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (1990): (1) Sentences involving confinement should be based on the following considerations: (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a…”
State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “Thus, even though the defendant might possess full capabilities for rehabilitative alternative sentencing, the trial judge was entitled under the law to exercise his discretion to impose a period of confinement under T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1)(B), provided the record adequately…”
State v. Hartley, 818 S.W.2d 370 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “Likewise, given the application of the presumption and the principles in T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1) which control sentences involving confinement, it would appear anachronistic to call the grant of probation or other alternative sentences an act of “grace,” “largess,” or “favor”…”
State v. Dowdy, 894 S.W.2d 301 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “When imposing a sentence of total confinement, the trial court should base its decision on the considerations listed in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1): (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct; (B)…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1) — 504 cases
State v. Hartley, 818 S.W.2d 370 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “Likewise, given the application of the presumption and the principles in T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1) which control sentences involving confinement, it would appear anachronistic to call the grant of probation or other alternative sentences an act of “grace,” “largess,” or “favor”…”
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008).
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991). “§ 40-35-402(d), requires application of the sentencing principles stated in T.C.A. § 40-35-103 to the facts and circumstances in the record deemed relevant by T.”
State v. Fields, 40 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2001). “” Guidance as to what constitutes evidence to the contrary may be found in the following sentencing considerations contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103(1) (1997): (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history…”
State v. Desirey, 909 S.W.2d 20 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(2) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Scott Petty (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(2010) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Brandon Scott (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(2020) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Xavier Montelious Riley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(A) — 348 cases
State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-103 and 210. The appellant committed extremely aggravated offenses within the meaning of T.”
State v. Fields, 40 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2001). “” Guidance as to what constitutes evidence to the contrary may be found in the following sentencing considerations contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103(1) (1997): (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history…”
State v. Martin, 146 S.W.3d 64 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
State v. Grissom, 956 S.W.2d 514 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State of Tennessee v. Allen Fitzgerald Ailey (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(A)(5) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Serena Carter (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(A)(C) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. David Lee Bellamy - Concurring (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(B) — 190 cases
State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “Thus, even though the defendant might possess full capabilities for rehabilitative alternative sentencing, the trial judge was entitled under the law to exercise his discretion to impose a period of confinement under T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1)(B), provided the record adequately…”
State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000).
State v. Fields, 40 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2001). “” Guidance as to what constitutes evidence to the contrary may be found in the following sentencing considerations contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103(1) (1997): (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history…”
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (1982) (repealed).”
State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(B)(2010) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. John Westin Massey (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(C) — 89 cases
State v. Fields, 40 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2001). “” Guidance as to what constitutes evidence to the contrary may be found in the following sentencing considerations contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103(1) (1997): (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history…”
State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. 1998). “§ 40-35-102 (noting considerations used in determining whether confinement shall be imposed); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (setting forth *274 considerations to be used when issuing sentencing of confinement).”
State of Tennessee v. Douglas Wayne Jackson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
State of Tennessee v. Bobby E. Lee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Nakeavious Milan (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(C)(2014) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Richard Adrian Vaughn (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(C)(6) — 1 case
State v. Carl Campen (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(b) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Luke Baron (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Scott Petty (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(c) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Michael Martez Rhodes (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Shrone M. Hill (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
State of Tennessee v. Kathy Cooper (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(13) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Denise Wiggins (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1997) — 1 case
State v. Thomas Johnson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(2) — 379 cases
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2017).
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “§ 40-35-102, are implemented by the sentencing considerations found in T.C.A. § 40-35-103. These considerations embody the controlling principles for reaching the sentencing decision in a particular case.”
State of Tennessee v. Michael Lebron Branham, 501 S.W.3d 577 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State v. Dowdy, 894 S.W.2d 301 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “When imposing a sentence of total confinement, the trial court should base its decision on the considerations listed in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1): (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct; (B)…”
State v. Bonds, 502 S.W.3d 118 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(2)(1997) — 1 case
State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456 (Tenn. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(3) — 11 cases
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “§ 40-35-102, are implemented by the sentencing considerations found in T.C.A. § 40-35-103. These considerations embody the controlling principles for reaching the sentencing decision in a particular case.”
State v. Godsey, 60 S.W.3d 759 (Tenn. 2001).
State v. Bilbrey, 816 S.W.2d 71 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
State v. Carpenter, 69 S.W.3d 568 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
State of Tennessee v. Jose Gonzalez Bonilla (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(4) — 171 cases
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “§ 40-35-102, are implemented by the sentencing considerations found in T.C.A. § 40-35-103. These considerations embody the controlling principles for reaching the sentencing decision in a particular case.”
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991). “§ 40-35-402(d), requires application of the sentencing principles stated in T.C.A. § 40-35-103 to the facts and circumstances in the record deemed relevant by T.”
State v. Wood, 91 S.W.3d 769 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Desirey, 909 S.W.2d 20 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
State of Tennessee v. Jessie Dotson, 450 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(5) — 816 cases
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “§ 40-35-102, are implemented by the sentencing considerations found in T.C.A. § 40-35-103. These considerations embody the controlling principles for reaching the sentencing decision in a particular case.”
State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Guidance as to what constitutes evidence to the contrary may be found in the following sentencing considerations codified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103 : (1) Sentences involving confinement should be based on the following considerations: (A) Confinement is necessary to protect…”
State v. Dowdy, 894 S.W.2d 301 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “When imposing a sentence of total confinement, the trial court should base its decision on the considerations listed in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1): (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct; (B)…”
State v. Zeolia, 928 S.W.2d 457 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “Evidence to the contrary may include the following sentencing considerations, codified in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (1990): (1) Sentences involving confinement should be based on the following considerations: (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a…”
State v. Nunley, 22 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(5)(2010) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Mousen Yisak Aden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(6) — 20 cases
State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. 1998). “§ 40-35-102 (noting considerations used in determining whether confinement shall be imposed); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (setting forth *274 considerations to be used when issuing sentencing of confinement).”
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “§ 40-35-102, are implemented by the sentencing considerations found in T.C.A. § 40-35-103. These considerations embody the controlling principles for reaching the sentencing decision in a particular case.”
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (1982) (repealed).”
State v. Dowdy, 894 S.W.2d 301 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “When imposing a sentence of total confinement, the trial court should base its decision on the considerations listed in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1): (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct; (B)…”
State v. Millsaps, 920 S.W.2d 267 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(6)(A) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Frank Huber Sumner (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(A) — 25 cases
State of Tennessee v. Cindy Mae Nelson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Jamie W. Stanfill (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Rolly William Whitford (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Metcalf (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Jose Guadalupe Frausto-Magallanes (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(B) — 11 cases
State v. Fields, 40 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2001). “” Guidance as to what constitutes evidence to the contrary may be found in the following sentencing considerations contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103(1) (1997): (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history…”
State of Tennessee v. David Lynn Richards, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Kerrington J'Kobe Lake (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
State of Tennessee v. Jamie W. Stanfill (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Metcalf (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(C) — 14 cases
State of Tennessee v. Crystal Michelle Rickman (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021).
State of Tennessee v. Cedrick Leroy Shelton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021).
State of Tennessee Roderick Darnell Stafford (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
State of Tennessee v. James Scott O'Brien (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Vianey Becerra Ibanez (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(a) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Todd Joseph Sweet a/k/a Jamie Lee Turpin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(a)(A) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Michael Ashley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Dewayne Theus (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(b) — 4 cases
State of Tennessee v. Hugh Everret Burt (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
State of Tennessee v. Earl David Maney (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
State of Tennessee v. Teddy Reece Ragan (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
Grimsley v. State (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(c) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Terna Hatten (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(l) — 1 case
State v. Grigsby, 957 S.W.2d 541 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(l)(A) — 15 cases
State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-103 and 210. The appellant committed extremely aggravated offenses within the meaning of T.”
State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “§ 40-35-102, are implemented by the sentencing considerations found in T.C.A. § 40-35-103. These considerations embody the controlling principles for reaching the sentencing decision in a particular case.”
State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). “The sentencing considerations contained in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (Supp.1989) are neither “enhancement factors” nor “mitigating factors” as those terms are used in § 40-35-210.”
State v. Hammons, 737 S.W.2d 549 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(l)(AHC) — 1 case
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991). “§ 40-35-402(d), requires application of the sentencing principles stated in T.C.A. § 40-35-103 to the facts and circumstances in the record deemed relevant by T.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(l)(B) — 30 cases
State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). “The sentencing considerations contained in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (Supp.1989) are neither “enhancement factors” nor “mitigating factors” as those terms are used in § 40-35-210.”
State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “Thus, even though the defendant might possess full capabilities for rehabilitative alternative sentencing, the trial judge was entitled under the law to exercise his discretion to impose a period of confinement under T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1)(B), provided the record adequately…”
State v. Hartley, 818 S.W.2d 370 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “Likewise, given the application of the presumption and the principles in T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1) which control sentences involving confinement, it would appear anachronistic to call the grant of probation or other alternative sentences an act of “grace,” “largess,” or “favor”…”
State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000).
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “§ 40-35-102, are implemented by the sentencing considerations found in T.C.A. § 40-35-103. These considerations embody the controlling principles for reaching the sentencing decision in a particular case.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(l)(C) — 5 cases
State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). “The sentencing considerations contained in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (Supp.1989) are neither “enhancement factors” nor “mitigating factors” as those terms are used in § 40-35-210.”
State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. 1998). “§ 40-35-102 (noting considerations used in determining whether confinement shall be imposed); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (setting forth *274 considerations to be used when issuing sentencing of confinement).”
State v. Bolling, 75 S.W.3d 418 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
State v. Elam, 7 S.W.3d 103 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
State v. Kear, 809 S.W.2d 197 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(l)(G) — 1 case
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “§ 40-35-102, are implemented by the sentencing considerations found in T.C.A. § 40-35-103. These considerations embody the controlling principles for reaching the sentencing decision in a particular case.”
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.