Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110 (2026)
Classification of offenses
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Felonies are classified for the purpose of sentencing into five (5) categories:
- (1) Class A felonies;
- (2) Class B felonies;
- (3) Class C felonies;
- (4) Class D felonies; and
- (5) Class E felonies.
- (b) An offense designated a felony without specification as to category is a Class E felony.
- (c) Misdemeanors are classified for the purpose of sentencing into three (3) categories:
- (1) Class A misdemeanors;
- (2) Class B misdemeanors; and
- (3) Class C misdemeanors.
- (d) An offense designated as a misdemeanor without specification as to category is a Class A misdemeanor.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986).
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “Discretion is further guided by consideration of the mitigating and enhancement factors in T.C.A. §§ 40-35-110 and 40-35-111. The Legislature has provided only for ranges within which a determinate sentence will be imposed and has not chosen to assign any controlling value to…”
State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “The appellants' criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury, T.C.A. § 40-35-110(1). The appellants did not contemplate that their criminal conduct would cause or threaten serious bodily injury.”
State v. Thomas, 755 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-35-110(12). As has been stated above, the defendant challenged the victim, the victim accepted the challenge, and the defendant obtained his shotgun from his truck.”
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “§§ 40-35-110, -111. 10 .If the appeal was by the defendant, the appellate court was authorized to dismiss the appeal; "[a]ffirm, reduce, vacate, or set aside the sentence imposed”; "[r]emand the case or direct the entry of an appropriate sentence or order”; or "[djirect any…”
State v. Thompson, 36 S.W.3d 102 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “§ 40-35-105(a)(1997) (providing for comprehensive classification of felony offenders under Sentencing Reform Act of 1989); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110 (a)(1997) (providing for comprehensive classification of felony offenses under Sentencing Reform Act of 1989).”
State v. Butler, 900 S.W.2d 305 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-109(a) (1982) (repealed 1989).”
State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “See T.C.A. § 40-35-110. However, there are several enhancement factors present.”
State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “See T.C.A. § 40-35-110. However, there are several enhancing factors present.”
State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). “The only mitigating factors in the appellant’s favor are his youth, (nineteen years of age), TCA § 40-35-110(7), and his low IQ, (77), TCA § 40-35-110(13) (the catchall provision).”
State v. Lambert, 741 S.W.2d 127 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “In arriving at a determinate sentence within the permissible range the trial judge must apply the sentencing considerations set forth in TCA § 40-35-103, the eviden-tiary requirements of TCA § 40-35-210(b), the relevant enhancement factors set forth in TCA § 40-35-111, and…”
State v. Seals, 735 S.W.2d 849 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 40-35-110(1). Second, the defendant did not contemplate that his criminal conduct would cause or threaten serious bodily injury.”
State v. Harris, 844 S.W.2d 601 (Tenn. 1992). “See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-110, Sentencing Commission Comments, and 40-35-111(b)(1).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110(1) — 5 cases
State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “The appellants' criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury, T.C.A. § 40-35-110(1). The appellants did not contemplate that their criminal conduct would cause or threaten serious bodily injury.”
State v. Bilbrey, 816 S.W.2d 71 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
State v. Seals, 735 S.W.2d 849 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 40-35-110(1). Second, the defendant did not contemplate that his criminal conduct would cause or threaten serious bodily injury.”
State v. Morris, 750 S.W.2d 746 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
State v. Willis, 735 S.W.2d 818 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110(12) — 3 cases
State v. Thomas, 755 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-35-110(12). As has been stated above, the defendant challenged the victim, the victim accepted the challenge, and the defendant obtained his shotgun from his truck.”
State v. Lambert, 741 S.W.2d 127 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “In arriving at a determinate sentence within the permissible range the trial judge must apply the sentencing considerations set forth in TCA § 40-35-103, the eviden-tiary requirements of TCA § 40-35-210(b), the relevant enhancement factors set forth in TCA § 40-35-111, and…”
State v. Willis, 735 S.W.2d 818 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110(13) — 7 cases
State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “The appellants' criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury, T.C.A. § 40-35-110(1). The appellants did not contemplate that their criminal conduct would cause or threaten serious bodily injury.”
State v. Butler, 900 S.W.2d 305 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-109(a) (1982) (repealed 1989).”
State v. Thomas, 755 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-35-110(12). As has been stated above, the defendant challenged the victim, the victim accepted the challenge, and the defendant obtained his shotgun from his truck.”
State v. Buttrey, 756 S.W.2d 718 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). “The only mitigating factors in the appellant’s favor are his youth, (nineteen years of age), TCA § 40-35-110(7), and his low IQ, (77), TCA § 40-35-110(13) (the catchall provision).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110(2) — 5 cases
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “Discretion is further guided by consideration of the mitigating and enhancement factors in T.C.A. §§ 40-35-110 and 40-35-111. The Legislature has provided only for ranges within which a determinate sentence will be imposed and has not chosen to assign any controlling value to…”
State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “The appellants' criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury, T.C.A. § 40-35-110(1). The appellants did not contemplate that their criminal conduct would cause or threaten serious bodily injury.”
State v. Seals, 735 S.W.2d 849 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 40-35-110(1). Second, the defendant did not contemplate that his criminal conduct would cause or threaten serious bodily injury.”
State v. Morris, 750 S.W.2d 746 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
State v. Bush, 747 S.W.2d 358 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110(3) — 1 case
State v. Thomas, 755 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-35-110(12). As has been stated above, the defendant challenged the victim, the victim accepted the challenge, and the defendant obtained his shotgun from his truck.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110(4) — 1 case
State v. Thomas, 755 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-35-110(12). As has been stated above, the defendant challenged the victim, the victim accepted the challenge, and the defendant obtained his shotgun from his truck.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110(7) — 4 cases
State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). “The only mitigating factors in the appellant’s favor are his youth, (nineteen years of age), TCA § 40-35-110(7), and his low IQ, (77), TCA § 40-35-110(13) (the catchall provision).”
State v. Warren, 750 S.W.2d 751 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
State v. Bush, 747 S.W.2d 358 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
State v. Farner (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110(9) — 2 cases
State v. Max, 714 S.W.2d 289 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986).
State v. Farner (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110(a) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Harley Crosland - Dissent (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110(a)(1997) — 1 case
State v. Thompson, 36 S.W.3d 102 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “§ 40-35-105(a)(1997) (providing for comprehensive classification of felony offenders under Sentencing Reform Act of 1989); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110 (a)(1997) (providing for comprehensive classification of felony offenses under Sentencing Reform Act of 1989).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110(c)(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “§§ 40-35-110, -111. 10 .If the appeal was by the defendant, the appellate court was authorized to dismiss the appeal; "[a]ffirm, reduce, vacate, or set aside the sentence imposed”; "[r]emand the case or direct the entry of an appropriate sentence or order”; or "[djirect any…”
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.