Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202 (2026)

Notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment - Statement of enhancement and mitigating factors

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

Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 220 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: State v. Taylor, 63 S.W.3d 400 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
State v. Taylor, 63 S.W.3d 400 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). · cites it 14× “The subject of Defendant’s complaint is the alleged noncompliance by the State with pai't (a) of Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-202 which states, in relevant part, the following: “If the district attorney general believes that a defendant should be sentenced as a multiple, persistent or…”
State v. Livingston, 197 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2006). · cites it 16× “The State filed a Notice of Enhanced Punishment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202, listing fourteen prior convictions by case number, offense, date of offense, and jurisdiction.”
State v. Stephenson, 752 S.W.2d 80 (Tenn. 1988). · cites it 37× “On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, he contended for the first time that the State had failed to comply with requirements of T.C.A. § 40-35-202(a) and the related provisions of Rule 12.”
State v. Benham, 113 S.W.3d 702 (Tenn. 2003). · cites it 27× “2d 385 , Tennessee Rules of Evidence, 609 and 405, and T.C.A. § 40-35-202. In addition, the State attached a computer printout of Benham’s criminal record.”
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Williams, 558 S.W.3d 633 (Tenn. 2018). · cites it 6× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202 (a) (2014). The State maintains that the defendant received fair notice of its intent to seek enhanced punishment because it had filed a timely and sufficient notice of enhanced punishment in a previous case, the defendant was aware of his…”
State of Tennessee v. Robert Fusco, 404 S.W.3d 504 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). · cites it 10× “In this case, the State filed a notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment pursuant to section 40-35-202 on September 16, 2009, five days before the Defendant’s trial began on September 21, 2009.”
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2017). · cites it 4× “The supreme court specifically held that ―when the State has substantially complied with Section 40-35-202(a), an accused has a duty to inquire about an ambiguous or incomplete notice and must show prejudice to obtain relief.”
State v. Gilmore, 823 S.W.2d 566 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 12× “§ 40-35-202(a) provides in part: If the district attorney general believes that a defendant should be sentenced as a multiple, persistent or career offender, he shall file a statement thereof with the court and defense counsel not less than ten (10) days before trial or…”
State v. Cooper, 321 S.W.3d 501 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 8× “We therefore remand this case for re-sentencing in accordance with the notice filed on May 12, 2003, to seek enhanced punishment as a multiple, persistent, or career offender pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202. Carter, 121 S.W.3d at 585 (“[Fjailure to file…”
State v. Morgan, 929 S.W.2d 380 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-202(a) (1990) provides, in pertinent part, “If the district attorney general believes that a defendant should be sentenced as a multiple, persistent or career offender, he shall file a statement thereof with the court and defense counsel not less than ten…”
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Patterson AKA John O'Keefe Varner AKA John O'Keefe Kitchen, 538 S.W.3d 431 (Tenn. 2017). · cites it 6× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202 (a) (2014) (addressing the notice required when the State intends to sentence a defendant as a multiple, persistent, or career offender); Tenn.”
State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722 (Tenn. 1994). · cites it 4× “[10] Debro and Adams are decisions under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202 (a) and Tenn.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202(A) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202(a) — 136 cases
State v. Stephenson, 752 S.W.2d 80 (Tenn. 1988). “On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, he contended for the first time that the State had failed to comply with requirements of T.C.A. § 40-35-202(a) and the related provisions of Rule 12.”
State v. Livingston, 197 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2006). “The State filed a Notice of Enhanced Punishment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202, listing fourteen prior convictions by case number, offense, date of offense, and jurisdiction.”
State v. Taylor, 63 S.W.3d 400 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “The subject of Defendant’s complaint is the alleged noncompliance by the State with pai't (a) of Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-202 which states, in relevant part, the following: “If the district attorney general believes that a defendant should be sentenced as a multiple, persistent or…”
State v. Benham, 113 S.W.3d 702 (Tenn. 2003). “2d 385 , Tennessee Rules of Evidence, 609 and 405, and T.C.A. § 40-35-202. In addition, the State attached a computer printout of Benham’s criminal record.”
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2017). “The supreme court specifically held that ―when the State has substantially complied with Section 40-35-202(a), an accused has a duty to inquire about an ambiguous or incomplete notice and must show prejudice to obtain relief.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202(a)(2) — 1 case
State v. Summers, 159 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202(b) — 7 cases
State v. Adams, 864 S.W.2d 31 (Tenn. 1993).
State v. Pearson, 858 S.W.2d 879 (Tenn. 1993).
State of Tennessee v. Robert Kevin Moore (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State of Tennessee v. Gerry Lynn Hensley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
State of Tennessee v. Jason R. Garner (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202(b)(1) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Delmonta Hill (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202(b)(l) — 1 case
State v. Birge, 792 S.W.2d 723 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202(c) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Baldomero Galindo (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
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.