Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115
Multiple convictions
- (a) If a defendant is convicted of more than one (1) criminal offense, the court shall order sentences to run consecutively or concurrently as provided by the criteria in this section.
- (b) The court may order sentences to run consecutively if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that:
- (1) The defendant is a professional criminal who has knowingly devoted the defendant's life to criminal acts as a major source of livelihood;
- (2) The defendant is an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive;
- (3) The defendant is a dangerous mentally abnormal person so declared by a competent psychiatrist who concludes as a result of an investigation prior to sentencing that the defendant's criminal conduct has been characterized by a pattern of repetitive or compulsive behavior with heedless indifference to consequences;
- (4) The defendant is a dangerous offender whose behavior indicates little or no regard for human life and no hesitation about committing a crime in which the risk to human life is high;
- (5) The defendant is convicted of two (2) or more statutory offenses involving sexual abuse of a minor with consideration of the aggravating circumstances arising from the relationship between the defendant and victim or victims, the time span of defendant's undetected sexual activity, the nature and scope of the sexual acts and the extent of the residual, physical and mental damage to the victim or victims;
- (6) The defendant is sentenced for an offense committed while on probation;
- (7) The defendant is sentenced for criminal contempt;
- (8) The defendant is convicted of two (2) or more offenses involving sexual exploitation of an elderly or vulnerable adult with consideration of the aggravating circumstances arising from the relationship between the defendant and victim, the nature and scope of the sexual acts, and the extent of the physical and mental damage to the victim;
- (9) The defendant was incarcerated at the time of the offense and is convicted of an offense enumerated in § 39-16-202(a)(2); or
- (10) The defendant is convicted of two (2) or more offenses involving more than one (1) victim, irrespective of whether the multiple offenses were part of a single criminal episode, and the court finds that a separate consecutive sentence for each offense is in the interest of justice.
- (c) The finding concerning the imposition of consecutive or concurrent sentences is appealable by either party.
- (d) Sentences shall be ordered to run concurrently if the criteria noted in subsection (b) are not met, unless consecutive sentences are specifically required by statute or the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 481, s 1, eff. 7/1/2023.
Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 347, s 2, eff. 7/1/2023.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 500, s 15, eff. 10/1/2021.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6; 1990, ch. 980, §§ 31, 32.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,972
cases (210 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: State v. Imfeld
State v. Imfeld (2002)
“Every offender convicted of two or more dangerous crimes is not a dangerous offender subject to consecutive sentences; consequently, the provisions of Section 40-35-115 cannot be read in isolation from the other provisions of the Act.”
State v. Lane (1999)
“See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 . The Act also includes general principles of sentencing which trial courts must consider in determining the length of a defendant’s sentence.”
State v. Wilkerson (1995)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115. The Act did not invalidate the decisions in Gray and Taylor .”
State v. Pettus (1999)
“However, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals on the sentencing issue because the record supports the imposition of consecutive sentences under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (b)(2)(Supp.l994).”
State v. Banks (2008)
“Based on our de novo review of the record, we have concluded, like the Court of Criminal Appeals, that the trial court, in accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115, did not err by ordering Mr.”
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Pollard (2013)
“Historical Background The Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1982 (the “1982 Act”) completely overhauled the state’s sentencing structure. See Act of Apr.”
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins (2017)
“- 58 - T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b). These criteria are stated in the alternative; therefore, only one need exist to support the appropriateness of consecutive sentencing.”
State v. Robinson (2004)
“A trial court may impose consecutive sentencing upon a determination that one or more of the criteria set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b) exist. This section permits the trial court to impose consecutive sentences if the court finds, among other criteria,…”
State of Tennessee v. Allen Doane (2011)
“" Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-115(b)(1) — (4), Sentencing Comm'n Cmts.”
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Anthony Dickson, Jr. (2013)
“He also determined under Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (2010) that the sentences for attempted first degree murder should run consecutively rather than concurrently, because the Defendant had an extensive criminal record under Tenn.”
State v. Dorantes (2011)
“See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (b)(4) (1997) (describing a “dangerous offender” as one “whose behavior indicates little or no regard for human life, and no hesitation about committing a crime in which the risk to human life is high”).”
State v. Allen (2008)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (2006). 6 Additionally, Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 provides as follows: (c) Concurrent or Consecutive Sentences.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(1) — 12 cases
State v. Michael Holmes (1998)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(13) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(14) — 3 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(2) — 23 cases
State v. Jones (1996)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(3) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(4) — 39 cases
State v. Wilkerson (1995)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115. The Act did not invalidate the decisions in Gray and Taylor .”
State v. Price (2000)
State v. Howell (2000)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(5) — 12 cases
State v. Osborne (2007)
State v. Hunter (1995)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(5)(b) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(6) — 9 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(8) — 1 case
State v. Cross (2012)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(9) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(C) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(a) — 90 cases
State v. Moore (1996)
State v. Meade (1996)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(a)(2) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(a)(4) — 4 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(a)(5) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(a)(6) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(a)(b)(5) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b) — 852 cases
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins (2017)
“- 58 - T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b). These criteria are stated in the alternative; therefore, only one need exist to support the appropriateness of consecutive sentencing.”
State v. Banks (2008)
“Based on our de novo review of the record, we have concluded, like the Court of Criminal Appeals, that the trial court, in accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115, did not err by ordering Mr.”
State v. Robinson (2004)
“A trial court may impose consecutive sentencing upon a determination that one or more of the criteria set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b) exist. This section permits the trial court to impose consecutive sentences if the court finds, among other criteria,…”
State v. Imfeld (2002)
“Every offender convicted of two or more dangerous crimes is not a dangerous offender subject to consecutive sentences; consequently, the provisions of Section 40-35-115 cannot be read in isolation from the other provisions of the Act.”
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Pollard (2013)
“Historical Background The Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1982 (the “1982 Act”) completely overhauled the state’s sentencing structure. See Act of Apr.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(1) — 131 cases
State v. Thornton (1999)
State v. Little (1992)
State v. Samuels (2001)
State v. Desirey (1995)
State v. Samuel (2007)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(1)(2) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(10) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(1990) — 1 case
State v. Kaufmann (1997)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(2) — 316 cases
State v. Pettus (1999)
“However, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals on the sentencing issue because the record supports the imposition of consecutive sentences under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (b)(2)(Supp.l994).”
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Anthony Dickson, Jr. (2013)
“He also determined under Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (2010) that the sentences for attempted first degree murder should run consecutively rather than concurrently, because the Defendant had an extensive criminal record under Tenn.”
State v. Palmer (1999)
State v. Allen (2008)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (2006). 6 Additionally, Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 provides as follows: (c) Concurrent or Consecutive Sentences.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(2)(6) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(3) — 6 cases
State v. Hallock (1993)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(4) — 362 cases
State v. Imfeld (2002)
“Every offender convicted of two or more dangerous crimes is not a dangerous offender subject to consecutive sentences; consequently, the provisions of Section 40-35-115 cannot be read in isolation from the other provisions of the Act.”
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Pollard (2013)
“Historical Background The Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1982 (the “1982 Act”) completely overhauled the state’s sentencing structure. See Act of Apr.”
State v. Robinson (2004)
“A trial court may impose consecutive sentencing upon a determination that one or more of the criteria set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b) exist. This section permits the trial court to impose consecutive sentences if the court finds, among other criteria,…”
State v. Wilkerson (1995)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115. The Act did not invalidate the decisions in Gray and Taylor .”
State v. Lane (1999)
“See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 . The Act also includes general principles of sentencing which trial courts must consider in determining the length of a defendant’s sentence.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(4)(6) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(5) — 168 cases
State of Tennessee v. Allen Doane (2011)
“" Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-115(b)(1) — (4), Sentencing Comm'n Cmts.”
State v. Lane (1999)
“See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 . The Act also includes general principles of sentencing which trial courts must consider in determining the length of a defendant’s sentence.”
State v. Schiefelbein (2007)
State v. Woodcock (1995)
State v. Osborne (2007)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(5)(1990) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(5)(1997) — 1 case
State v. Lane (1999)
“See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 . The Act also includes general principles of sentencing which trial courts must consider in determining the length of a defendant’s sentence.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(6) — 100 cases
State v. Pettus (1999)
“However, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals on the sentencing issue because the record supports the imposition of consecutive sentences under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (b)(2)(Supp.l994).”
State v. Hester (2010)
State v. Franklin (1995)
State v. Smith (1994)
State v. Banks (2008)
“Based on our de novo review of the record, we have concluded, like the Court of Criminal Appeals, that the trial court, in accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115, did not err by ordering Mr.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(7) — 5 cases
State v. Turner (1995)
State v. Wood (2002)
In re: A.J. (2015)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(8) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(l) — 6 cases
State v. Samuel (2007)
State v. Adams (2000)
State v. Scarborough (2009)
State v. Jones (1996)
State v. Bell (1991)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(c) — 3 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(d) — 14 cases
State v. Schiefelbein (2007)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(d)(4) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(d)(6) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(l) — 1 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.