Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-105 (2026)
Standard offender
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) A standard offender is a defendant not sentenced as:
- (1) A multiple offender, as defined by § 40-35-106;
- (2) A persistent offender, as defined by § 40-35-107;
- (3) A career offender, as defined by § 40-35-108;
- (4) An especially mitigated offender, as defined by § 40-35-109; or
- (5) A repeat violent offender, as defined by § 40-35-120.
- (b) The sentence for a standard offender is within Range I.
- (c) If the judgment of conviction does not include a sentence range, it shall be returned to the sentencing court to be completed.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6; 1994, ch. 994, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 124
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011).
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011). “Because offender classification is determined by reference to a statutory scheme, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-105 to -109 (2010), I believe that a sentence which is not a part of a plea agreement and which includes an offender classification, either unavailable under or in…”
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “Furthermore, the process of classifying offenders or offenses as well as of calculation of sentencing ranges provided for in T.C.A. §§ 40-35-105 (Supp.1986), 40-35-106 (Supp.”
Terrance Lavar Davis v. State of Tennessee, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2010). “§ 40-35-105; a multiple Range II offender, id.”
State v. Wyrick, 62 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-105 to -108. The trial court determines a defendant’s status as a standard, multiple, persistent, or career offender by examining the number and classification of the defendant’s prior felony convictions.”
State v. Thompson, 36 S.W.3d 102 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “"); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-105(a)(1997) (providing for comprehensive classification of felony offenders under Sentencing Reform Act of 1989); Tenn.”
State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-105 through-109 (1997, 2006).”
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “The 1989 Act also included a list of sentencing alternatives.”
State of Tennessee v. Glover P. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2014). “Following a sentencing hearing on June 1, 2010, the trial court determined that under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-105, Mr. Smith is a Range I, Standard Offender.”
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008). “§§ 40-35-105 to -109. For instance, a “Range I” sentence for a Class C felony is three to six years, id.”
State v. Anderson, 880 S.W.2d 720 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-105 ; *728 Tenn. Code Ann.”
State v. Palmer, 902 S.W.2d 391 (Tenn. 1995). “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-105, -109 & -112 (1990 Repl.”
State v. David E. Walton, Jr., 958 S.W.2d 724 (Tenn. 1997). “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-105 to -109 (1990 & Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-105(4) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Ray Tipton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-105(a) — 7 cases
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011). “Because offender classification is determined by reference to a statutory scheme, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-105 to -109 (2010), I believe that a sentence which is not a part of a plea agreement and which includes an offender classification, either unavailable under or in…”
State v. Wyrick, 62 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-105 to -108. The trial court determines a defendant’s status as a standard, multiple, persistent, or career offender by examining the number and classification of the defendant’s prior felony convictions.”
State v. Witherspoon, 769 S.W.2d 880 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
James M. Meese v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
State of Tennessee v. Tina M. Dixon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-105(a)(1) — 1 case
Roger T. Johnson v. Wayne Brandon, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-105(a)(1997) — 1 case
State v. Thompson, 36 S.W.3d 102 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “"); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-105(a)(1997) (providing for comprehensive classification of felony offenders under Sentencing Reform Act of 1989); Tenn.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-105(b) — 4 cases
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011). “Because offender classification is determined by reference to a statutory scheme, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-105 to -109 (2010), I believe that a sentence which is not a part of a plea agreement and which includes an offender classification, either unavailable under or in…”
State of Tennessee v. Tucson Biggs (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
State of Tennessee v. Ashley N. Menke (Tenn. 2019).
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden (Tenn. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-105(c) — 2 cases
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011). “Because offender classification is determined by reference to a statutory scheme, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-105 to -109 (2010), I believe that a sentence which is not a part of a plea agreement and which includes an offender classification, either unavailable under or in…”
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “Furthermore, the process of classifying offenders or offenses as well as of calculation of sentencing ranges provided for in T.C.A. §§ 40-35-105 (Supp.1986), 40-35-106 (Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-105(c)(2) — 1 case
Thomas M. Tucker v. Flora J. Holland, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005).
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.