Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-203 (2026)

Court to impose sentence - Exceptions

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

Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6; 1990, ch. 980, § 24.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: State v. Hodges, 815 S.W.2d 151 (Tenn. 1991).
State v. Hodges, 815 S.W.2d 151 (Tenn. 1991). · cites it 16× “The State argues here that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in determining that the trial courts were empowered to sua sponte alter the defendant's sentences, where said sentences were imposed by agreement of the parties and with prior judicial approval.”
Terrance Lavar Davis v. State of Tennessee, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 4× “2000) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-203 (b), -205(d) (1997)).”
State v. Wyrick, 62 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “§ 39-1-801 (repealed 1989). Similarly, the legislature requires that a jury determine that a defendant has previously been convicted of the same offense in order to enhance punishment for a subsequent conviction for that offense.”
Thurmond v. Carlton, 202 S.W.3d 131 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “*136 T.C.A. § 40-35-203(e). This section refers to section 40-35-111, which outlines the authorized terms of imprisonment and fines for felonies and misdemeanors.”
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). · cites it 2× “Under T.C.A. § 40-35-203(a), upon a verdict or plea of guilty, the trial court is to hold a sentencing hearing at which evidence may be presented by the State or defendant concerning any issue relevant to sentencing.”
McConnell v. State, 12 S.W.3d 795 (Tenn. 2000). · cites it 2× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-203(b), -205(d) (1997).”
State v. Seay, 945 S.W.2d 755 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “The trial judge flatly refused to accept the recommendation saying that after reviewing the record, he would “turn that [state’s recommendation] down.”
State v. Crook, 2 S.W.3d 238 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-203(b), -205(d). However, we conclude that the agreement in the instant case whereby the defendant agreed to two separate sentences for the same two offenses, one of which was contingent upon future conduct of the defendant, is neither contemplated nor…”
Howard Sampson v. Aileene Love, Warden, 782 F.2d 53 (6th Cir. 1986). “See The Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1982, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-203 (1982). 3 . The newspaper clippings were offered to show that the case received much publicity, supporting an inference that the second jury was aware of the first verdict and the sentence accompanying…”
State v. Bates, 313 S.W.3d 265 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-209 states: (a) Before imposing sentence or making other disposition upon acceptance of a plea of guilty or upon a verdict or finding of guilty, the court shall conduct a sentencing hearing without unreasonable delay, but in no event more…”
State v. Pugh, 713 S.W.2d 682 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “TCA §§ 40-35-203(b) and 40-35-205(d). Among the matters which must be included in the presentence report are “(t)he characteristics and circumstances of the offense,” TCA § 40-35-207(a)(l), and information relating to enhancement or mitigating factors, whether asserted by the…”
State of Tennessee v. Tray Turner (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). · cites it 14× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-203 (e). The first phrase in the aforementioned statute illustrates that it does not apply to the instant case.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-203(3) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-203(a) — 7 cases
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “Under T.C.A. § 40-35-203(a), upon a verdict or plea of guilty, the trial court is to hold a sentencing hearing at which evidence may be presented by the State or defendant concerning any issue relevant to sentencing.”
State v. Hodges, 815 S.W.2d 151 (Tenn. 1991). “The State argues here that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in determining that the trial courts were empowered to sua sponte alter the defendant's sentences, where said sentences were imposed by agreement of the parties and with prior judicial approval.”
State of Tennessee v. Chastity Coleman (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-203(aHb) — 1 case
State v. Hodges, 815 S.W.2d 151 (Tenn. 1991). “The State argues here that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in determining that the trial courts were empowered to sua sponte alter the defendant's sentences, where said sentences were imposed by agreement of the parties and with prior judicial approval.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-203(b) — 12 cases
Terrance Lavar Davis v. State of Tennessee, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2010). “2000) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-203 (b), -205(d) (1997)).”
McConnell v. State, 12 S.W.3d 795 (Tenn. 2000). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-203(b), -205(d) (1997).”
State v. Seay, 945 S.W.2d 755 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “The trial judge flatly refused to accept the recommendation saying that after reviewing the record, he would “turn that [state’s recommendation] down.”
State v. Crook, 2 S.W.3d 238 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-203(b), -205(d). However, we conclude that the agreement in the instant case whereby the defendant agreed to two separate sentences for the same two offenses, one of which was contingent upon future conduct of the defendant, is neither contemplated nor…”
State v. Bates, 313 S.W.3d 265 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-209 states: (a) Before imposing sentence or making other disposition upon acceptance of a plea of guilty or upon a verdict or finding of guilty, the court shall conduct a sentencing hearing without unreasonable delay, but in no event more…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-203(c) — 4 cases
State v. Bates, 313 S.W.3d 265 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-209 states: (a) Before imposing sentence or making other disposition upon acceptance of a plea of guilty or upon a verdict or finding of guilty, the court shall conduct a sentencing hearing without unreasonable delay, but in no event more…”
State of Tennessee v. Howard P. Fisher (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
Robert M. Sneed v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-203(e) — 8 cases
State v. Wyrick, 62 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “§ 39-1-801 (repealed 1989). Similarly, the legislature requires that a jury determine that a defendant has previously been convicted of the same offense in order to enhance punishment for a subsequent conviction for that offense.”
Thurmond v. Carlton, 202 S.W.3d 131 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006). “*136 T.C.A. § 40-35-203(e). This section refers to section 40-35-111, which outlines the authorized terms of imprisonment and fines for felonies and misdemeanors.”
State of Tennessee v. Tray Turner (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-203 (e). The first phrase in the aforementioned statute illustrates that it does not apply to the instant case.”
State of Tennessee v. Thomas R. Davis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
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.