Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111 (2026)

Authorized terms of imprisonment and fines for felonies and misdemeanors

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6; 2007, ch. 61, § 1.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 348 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). · cites it 16× “T.C.A. § 40-35-111(1). The appellant has been convicted of a previous felony, arrested on numerous occasions according to his own admission, and he is wanted in other areas of the United States for the commission of felony offenses.”
State v. Edwards, 868 S.W.2d 682 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). · cites it 16× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-111. The defendant’s criminal record was placed into evidence during the sentencing hearing.”
State v. Lambert, 741 S.W.2d 127 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). · cites it 14× “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. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). · cites it 6× “” T.C.A. § 40-35-111(10). Mitigating and enhancement factors are not assigned any particularized weight or value because each may carry differing degrees of weight depending on all of the circumstances of the defendant and the crime itself.”
Thomas v. Haslam, 303 F. Supp. 3d 585 (M.D. Tenn. 2018). · cites it 6× “Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-111 (e)(2), 55-50-504(a)(1).”
State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). · cites it 10× “TCA § 40-35-111. 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. Thomas, 755 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “T.C.A. § 40-35-111(1). The defendant has been convicted of driving while under the influence on two occasions, a violation of the driving license laws, and he has had several arrests and prosecutions, which were apparently retired.”
Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Comm'r of Revenue for the State of Tennessee, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009). · cites it 4× “2004); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111 (b)(1) (2003).”
State v. Hammons, 737 S.W.2d 549 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). · cites it 10× “T.C.A. § 40-35-111. This Court finds the appellant lacks the characteristics, traits and desire necessary for one to rehabilitate himself.”
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-111(e)(2) (2006). We order the trial court to correct the judgment document accordingly to reflect a sentence of six months.”
State v. Turner, 193 S.W.3d 522 (Tenn. 2006). · cites it 8× “In support of this contention, he cites the provided penalties for conviction of a Class A misdemeanor: (e) The authorized terms of imprisonment and fines for misdemeanors are: (1) Class A misdemeanor, not greater than eleven (11) months twenty-nine days (29) days or a fine not…”
State v. Wyrick, 62 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “The defendant argues that the violent offender statute is not a recidivist statute and that sections 40-35-111 and -112 of the code encompass recidivism while section 40-35-120 deals with prior convictions for specific offenses.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(1) — 23 cases
State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 40-35-111(1). The appellant has been convicted of a previous felony, arrested on numerous occasions according to his own admission, and he is wanted in other areas of the United States for the commission of felony offenses.”
State v. Thomas, 755 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-35-111(1). The defendant has been convicted of driving while under the influence on two occasions, a violation of the driving license laws, and he has had several arrests and prosecutions, which were apparently retired.”
State v. Buttrey, 756 S.W.2d 718 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). “TCA § 40-35-111. 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. Massey, 757 S.W.2d 350 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(10) — 13 cases
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “” T.C.A. § 40-35-111(10). Mitigating and enhancement factors are not assigned any particularized weight or value because each may carry differing degrees of weight depending on all of the circumstances of the defendant and the crime itself.”
State v. Edwards, 868 S.W.2d 682 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-111. The defendant’s criminal record was placed into evidence during the sentencing hearing.”
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. Thomas, 755 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-35-111(1). The defendant has been convicted of driving while under the influence on two occasions, a violation of the driving license laws, and he has had several arrests and prosecutions, which were apparently retired.”
State v. Avery, 818 S.W.2d 365 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(2) — 4 cases
State v. Seals, 735 S.W.2d 849 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
Williams v. State, 757 So. 2d 953 (Miss. 1999).
State v. Massey, 757 S.W.2d 350 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
State v. Warren, 750 S.W.2d 751 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(3) — 5 cases
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).
State v. Birge, 792 S.W.2d 723 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).
State v. Massey, 757 S.W.2d 350 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
State v. Farner (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(4) — 9 cases
State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 40-35-111(1). The appellant has been convicted of a previous felony, arrested on numerous occasions according to his own admission, and he is wanted in other areas of the United States for the commission of felony offenses.”
State v. Thomas, 755 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-35-111(1). The defendant has been convicted of driving while under the influence on two occasions, a violation of the driving license laws, and he has had several arrests and prosecutions, which were apparently retired.”
State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). “TCA § 40-35-111. 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. Butler, 900 S.W.2d 305 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(5) — 7 cases
State v. Edwards, 868 S.W.2d 682 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-111. The defendant’s criminal record was placed into evidence during the sentencing hearing.”
State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). “TCA § 40-35-111. 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. Hammons, 737 S.W.2d 549 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 40-35-111. This Court finds the appellant lacks the characteristics, traits and desire necessary for one to rehabilitate himself.”
State v. Witherspoon, 769 S.W.2d 880 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(6) — 9 cases
State v. Thomas, 755 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-35-111(1). The defendant has been convicted of driving while under the influence on two occasions, a violation of the driving license laws, and he has had several arrests and prosecutions, which were apparently retired.”
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. Bilbrey, 816 S.W.2d 71 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
State v. Max, 714 S.W.2d 289 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986).
State v. Morris, 750 S.W.2d 746 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(7) — 8 cases
State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 40-35-111(1). The appellant has been convicted of a previous felony, arrested on numerous occasions according to his own admission, and he is wanted in other areas of the United States for the commission of felony offenses.”
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “” T.C.A. § 40-35-111(10). Mitigating and enhancement factors are not assigned any particularized weight or value because each may carry differing degrees of weight depending on all of the circumstances of the defendant and the crime itself.”
State v. David E. Walton, Jr., 958 S.W.2d 724 (Tenn. 1997).
State v. Edwards, 868 S.W.2d 682 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-111. The defendant’s criminal record was placed into evidence during the sentencing hearing.”
State v. Hammons, 737 S.W.2d 549 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 40-35-111. This Court finds the appellant lacks the characteristics, traits and desire necessary for one to rehabilitate himself.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(8) — 2 cases
State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 40-35-111(1). The appellant has been convicted of a previous felony, arrested on numerous occasions according to his own admission, and he is wanted in other areas of the United States for the commission of felony offenses.”
State v. Bush, 747 S.W.2d 358 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(9) — 5 cases
State v. Butler, 900 S.W.2d 305 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
State v. Max, 714 S.W.2d 289 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986).
State v. Witherspoon, 769 S.W.2d 880 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
State v. Warren, 750 S.W.2d 751 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
State v. Farner (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(a) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(a)(3) — 3 cases
McChristian v. State, 159 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
Robert McChristian v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(a)(4) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Paul Trusty (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(a)(5) — 1 case
Anthony C. Long v. Tony Parker, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(b) — 5 cases
Terrance Lavar Davis v. State of Tennessee, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2010).
Vaughn Harris v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Alvin Ray Taylor (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(b)(1) — 22 cases
Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Comm'r of Revenue for the State of Tennessee, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009). “2004); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111 (b)(1) (2003).”
Terrance Lavar Davis v. State of Tennessee, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2010).
State v. Smith, 48 S.W.3d 159 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Prink (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
Keith T. Perry v. Glen Turner, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(b)(2) — 12 cases
Juan Alberto Blanco Garcia v. State of Tennessee, 425 S.W.3d 248 (Tenn. 2013).
Calvin Eugene BRYANT v. STATE of Tennessee, 460 S.W.3d 513 (Tenn. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. Michael Harris (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(b)(3) — 14 cases
State v. Fields, 40 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2001).
Terrance N. CARTER v. Rickey BELL, 279 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2009).
State of Tennessee v. Perry A. March, 293 S.W.3d 576 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
McChristian v. State, 159 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
State v. Henry, 834 S.W.2d 273 (Tenn. 1992).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(b)(4) — 5 cases
State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. 2014).
Wassom v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 173 S.W.3d 775 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
State of Tennessee v. David Lassiter (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
State of Tennessee v. Denton Jones (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(b)(4)(5) — 1 case
United States v. Doyle, 678 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(b)(5) — 16 cases
State v. Ricci, 914 S.W.2d 475 (Tenn. 1996).
Juan Alberto Blanco Garcia v. State of Tennessee, 425 S.W.3d 248 (Tenn. 2013).
State v. Hayes, 894 S.W.2d 298 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
State of Tennessee v. David Lassiter (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
State of Tennessee Guy Willie Toles (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(c) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(c)(4) — 1 case
Jeremy Flax v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 272 S.W.3d 521 (Tenn. 2008).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(d) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(d)(1) — 2 cases
McChristian v. State, 159 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(e) — 10 cases
State v. Palmer, 902 S.W.2d 391 (Tenn. 1995).
City of White House v. Whitley, 979 S.W.2d 262 (Tenn. 1998).
State v. Godsey, 165 S.W.3d 667 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Hayes (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Richard Ferrell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(e)(1) — 38 cases
State v. Turner, 193 S.W.3d 522 (Tenn. 2006). “In support of this contention, he cites the provided penalties for conviction of a Class A misdemeanor: (e) The authorized terms of imprisonment and fines for misdemeanors are: (1) Class A misdemeanor, not greater than eleven (11) months twenty-nine days (29) days or a fine not…”
Brown v. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850 (Tenn. 2010).
State v. Lewis, 978 S.W.2d 558 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
Juan Alberto Blanco Garcia v. State of Tennessee, 425 S.W.3d 248 (Tenn. 2013).
State v. Winfield, 23 S.W.3d 279 (Tenn. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(e)(2) — 8 cases
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-111(e)(2) (2006). We order the trial court to correct the judgment document accordingly to reflect a sentence of six months.”
State v. Keller, 813 S.W.2d 146 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
State v. Hicks, 848 S.W.2d 69 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(e)(3) — 6 cases
State of Tennessee v. Leston Parker (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
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.