Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209 (2026)
Sentencing hearing - Transfer of report to department of correction or local jail or workhouse - Form of judgment of conviction
✓ current as of May 2026
- (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 than forty-five (45) days after the finding of guilt, except as provided in § 40-35-203(b) relating to agreed sentences and § 40-35-203(c) relating to capital crimes. The court, upon the request of either party and with good cause shown, shall continue the sentencing hearing for at least five (5) days, but not more than thirty (30) days, after the filing of a presentence report, unless either party shows good cause for further postponement or unless these time constraints will unduly prejudice the position of either party.
- (b) At the sentencing hearing, the court shall afford the parties the opportunity to be heard and present evidence relevant to the sentencing of the defendant and may afford the victim of the offense or the family of the victim the opportunity to testify relevant to the sentencing of the defendant. The court may allow the parties to subpoena witnesses and call or cross-examine witnesses, including, but not limited to, the person who prepared the presentence report and any person whose information contained in the presentence report is relevant to the sentencing decision. At the sentencing hearing, the district attorney general shall be the first party to present evidence and then the defendant shall have an opportunity to present evidence. Both parties may be allowed to call witnesses in rebuttal. The rules of evidence shall apply, except that reliable hearsay, including, but not limited to, certified copies of convictions or documents, may be admitted if the opposing party is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay evidence so admitted; provided, that this subsection (b) shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the United States or Tennessee constitutions.
- (c) A record of the sentencing hearing is kept and preserved in the same manner as trial records. The record of the sentencing hearing is part of the record of the case and shall include specific findings of fact upon which application of the sentencing principles was based.
- (d)
- (1) Whenever a defendant is sentenced for a felony to the custody of the department of correction or a local jail or workhouse, the sentencing court shall transmit to the commissioner of correction or the superintendent of the local jail or workhouse a copy of the defendant's presentence report when one is prepared in accordance with this chapter. If the presentence report was controverted at the sentencing hearing, the court shall order the report modified to incorporate any findings of the court that are inconsistent with the original report, and the defendant shall be entitled to file a statement in response to the presentence report and the court's findings. If there is no presentence report and the defendant is sentenced for a felony to the department or local jail or workhouse, the court shall direct the presentence service officer to make an investigation and report in conformity with § 40-35-207. The clerk shall, within ten (10) days after entry of the judgment of conviction of the defendant to a local jail or workhouse, transmit to the superintendent of the institution the original or modified presentence report and shall, within ten (10) days after receiving statements from the counsel for the defendant, transmit a copy to the superintendent and a copy to the district attorney general; provided, that this requirement shall not be cause for delay in conveying the defendant to the local institution to which the defendant has been committed. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no defendant sentenced to the custody of the department shall be committed or conveyed to the department unaccompanied by the completed presentence report or investigation and report required by this section.
- (2) The department has the authority to employ a sufficient number of presentence service officers to provide the additional reports required by this subsection (d).
- (3) In those counties wherein a presentence report is prepared upon instructions of the court before the trial of any person, the presentence report shall not be commented upon or read to the jury by the judge or the district attorney general or defense counsel.
- (e)
- (1) After the defendant is sentenced, the district attorney general shall complete and file within thirty (30) days the uniform judgment document for the conviction that is signed by all parties; but if not signed by the parties, the clerk shall make a copy of the document available to the parties before entry by the court, which shall indicate for each offense the following:
- (A) The type of offense for which the defendant was charged and convicted and the sentence imposed;
- (B) Whether the defendant was sentenced as a standard offender;
- (C) Whether the defendant was sentenced as a multiple offender;
- (D) Whether the defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender;
- (E) Whether the defendant was sentenced as a career offender;
- (F) Whether the defendant was sentenced as a repeat violent offender;
- (G) Whether the defendant was sentenced as a one hundred percent (100%) offender pursuant to § 40-35-501(i);
- (H) Whether the defendant was sentenced as an especially mitigated offender;
- (I) Whether the sentence was to a local jail;
- (J) Whether the sentence was to a local workhouse;
- (K) Whether the sentence was to the department;
- (L) Whether the sentence was to probation supervision;
- (M) Whether the sentence was to continuous confinement or periodic confinement followed by a period of probation supervision;
- (N) Whether the sentence was to a community-based alternative to incarceration as provided in chapter 36 of this title;
- (O) Whether the sentence runs concurrently or consecutively with any other sentence;
- (P) The amount, if any, of pretrial jail credit awarded pursuant to § 40-23-101;
- (Q) The social security number of the defendant;
- (R) The date of birth of defendant; and
- (S) The date the conviction offense was committed.
- (2) After the defendant is sentenced the uniform judgment document completed by the district attorney general is a public record and is available to anyone upon request.
- (1) After the defendant is sentenced, the district attorney general shall complete and file within thirty (30) days the uniform judgment document for the conviction that is signed by all parties; but if not signed by the parties, the clerk shall make a copy of the document available to the parties before entry by the court, which shall indicate for each offense the following:
- (f) The supreme court shall promulgate a uniform judgment document for use by the trial judges in this state, and the trial judges shall employ that document for each criminal case resulting in a conviction.
- (g) If the judgment of conviction does not include the information required in subsection (e), it shall be returned to the sentencing court to be completed.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6; 1994, ch. 994, § 3; 2000, ch. 800, §§ 3, 4; 2009 , ch. 379, §§ 1, 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 434
cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. 1998).
State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. 1998). “The general issues may be framed as whether Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-209 and Tenn.Code Ann.”
State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 40-35-209(b). An exception is made for the introduction of reliable hearsay.”
State v. Blackhurst, 70 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “The State argues that, in light of the trial court’s abuse of discretion and failure to consider relevant evidence, Defendant’s probation must be reversed and the case remanded for proper consideration of the victim’s testimony as contemplated by Tennessee Code Annotated section…”
Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009). “1986), the leading case on the subject, the defendant claimed that his sentence should be overturned because the sentencing hearing was delayed by three days (the version of section 40-35-209 in effect at that time required the sentencing hearing to be held within thirty days).”
State v. Stephens, 264 S.W.3d 719 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “Accordingly, Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 17 states in pertinent part as follows: The judgment document shall be in the form provided and shall contain all of the information required by T.C.A. § 40-35-209(e). The judgment should be prepared for each conviction; if there are…”
State v. Berry, 503 S.W.3d 360 (Tenn. 2015). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209 (e)(l). . Notably, the form contains spaces for both the case number and each count number in a criminal case, as well as boxes indicating "Dismissal/Nolle Prosequi" and "Not Guilty.”
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “When a sentence is imposed, the court “shall place on the record either orally or in writing its findings of fact and reasons as required by § 40-35-209.” T.C.A. § 40-35-210(c). In any case, the “sentence must be based on evidence in the record of the trial, the sentencing…”
State v. Siliski, 238 S.W.3d 338 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-209(e) (2003). We conclude that the September 23, 2004, “Judgment” entered by the trial court was a preliminary sentencing order and not a final judgment.”
State v. Moss, 13 S.W.3d 374 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “1984); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209 (b). Reliable hearsay is admissible in a sentencing hearing so long as the opposing party has a fair opportunity to rebut the evidence.”
State v. Ervin, 939 S.W.2d 581 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-209(a) and -210(a) through (e).”
State v. Cottrell, 868 S.W.2d 673 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209 (a). Certified copies of convictions are admissible as reliable hearsay only when "the opposing party is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut.”
State v. Richardson, 875 S.W.2d 671 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209 (b) provides that the person who prepared the presentenee report may be a witness at the sentencing hearing.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(P) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. David Reed (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(a) — 16 cases
Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009). “1986), the leading case on the subject, the defendant claimed that his sentence should be overturned because the sentencing hearing was delayed by three days (the version of section 40-35-209 in effect at that time required the sentencing hearing to be held within thirty days).”
State v. Jones, 15 S.W.3d 880 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
State v. Ervin, 939 S.W.2d 581 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-209(a) and -210(a) through (e).”
State v. Cottrell, 868 S.W.2d 673 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209 (a). Certified copies of convictions are admissible as reliable hearsay only when "the opposing party is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut.”
State v. Jones, 729 S.W.2d 683 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(b) — 75 cases
State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 40-35-209(b). An exception is made for the introduction of reliable hearsay.”
State v. Blackhurst, 70 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “The State argues that, in light of the trial court’s abuse of discretion and failure to consider relevant evidence, Defendant’s probation must be reversed and the case remanded for proper consideration of the victim’s testimony as contemplated by Tennessee Code Annotated section…”
State v. Ring, 56 S.W.3d 577 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
State v. Mounger, 7 S.W.3d 70 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
State v. Wall, 909 S.W.2d 8 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(c) — 43 cases
State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. 1998). “The general issues may be framed as whether Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-209 and Tenn.Code Ann.”
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “When a sentence is imposed, the court “shall place on the record either orally or in writing its findings of fact and reasons as required by § 40-35-209.” T.C.A. § 40-35-210(c). In any case, the “sentence must be based on evidence in the record of the trial, the sentencing…”
State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn. 1994).
State v. Ervin, 939 S.W.2d 581 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-209(a) and -210(a) through (e).”
State v. Gauldin, 737 S.W.2d 795 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(d) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Vernon Lamar Bryant (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
State of Tennessee v. Vernon Lamar Bryant (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(d)(1) — 1 case
Secdrick L. Booker v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(e) — 22 cases
State v. Siliski, 238 S.W.3d 338 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-209(e) (2003). We conclude that the September 23, 2004, “Judgment” entered by the trial court was a preliminary sentencing order and not a final judgment.”
State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. 1998). “The general issues may be framed as whether Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-209 and Tenn.Code Ann.”
State v. Stephens, 264 S.W.3d 719 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “Accordingly, Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 17 states in pertinent part as follows: The judgment document shall be in the form provided and shall contain all of the information required by T.C.A. § 40-35-209(e). The judgment should be prepared for each conviction; if there are…”
State v. Crook, 2 S.W.3d 238 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
Michelle Tipton v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(e)(1) — 14 cases
State v. Stephens, 264 S.W.3d 719 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “Accordingly, Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 17 states in pertinent part as follows: The judgment document shall be in the form provided and shall contain all of the information required by T.C.A. § 40-35-209(e). The judgment should be prepared for each conviction; if there are…”
State of Tennessee v. Antonio J. Beasley, Sr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Anthony L. Moore (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Kristie Ward Thompson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Maurice Jackson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(e)(1)(A) — 5 cases
State of Tennessee v. Alfonso Thomas Peck (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Glen Nichols (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
Dennis L. Rose v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
Michelle Tipton v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Joseph George Schenck (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(e)(1)(G) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Lynn Harris (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
Michelle Tipton v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(e)(1)(P) — 5 cases
State of Tennessee v. David Reed (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Anthony L. Moore (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Aaron Dewayne Troutt (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Theus (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
David Hearing v. Dan E. Armstrong (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(e)(15) — 1 case
Kent Ousley v. David Mills, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(e)(16) — 1 case
Rahim Al Zarkani v. David G. Mills, State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(f) — 7 cases
State v. Berry, 503 S.W.3d 360 (Tenn. 2015). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209 (e)(l). . Notably, the form contains spaces for both the case number and each count number in a criminal case, as well as boxes indicating "Dismissal/Nolle Prosequi" and "Not Guilty.”
State v. Woodall, 729 S.W.2d 91 (Tenn. 1987).
Dyron Norm Yokley v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
James William Taylor v. George Little (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
State of Tennessee v. Lawrence Dewayne Stoner (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(g) — 3 cases
James William Taylor v. George Little (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Roger Lynn Perry, pro se. v. Tony Parker, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
John Haws Burrell v. Howard Carlton, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
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.