Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (2026)
Imposition of sentence - Evidence to be considered - Presumptive sentence - Sentence explanation
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the court shall first determine the appropriate range of sentence.
- (b) To determine the specific sentence and the appropriate combination of sentencing alternatives that shall be imposed on the defendant, the court shall consider the following:
- (1) The evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing;
- (2) The presentence report;
- (3) The principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives;
- (4) The nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved;
- (5) Evidence and information offered by the parties on the mitigating and enhancement factors set out in §§ 40-35-113 and 40-35-114;
- (6) Any statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee;
- (7) Any statement the defendant wishes to make on the defendant's own behalf about sentencing; and
- (8) The result of the validated risk and needs assessment conducted by the department and contained in the presentence report.
- (c) The court shall impose a sentence within the range of punishment, determined by whether the defendant is a mitigated, standard, persistent, career or repeat violent offender. In imposing a specific sentence within the range of punishment, the court shall consider, but is not bound by, the following advisory sentencing guidelines:
- (1) The minimum sentence within the range of punishment is the sentence that should be imposed, because the general assembly set the minimum length of sentence for each felony class to reflect the relative seriousness of each criminal offense in the felony classifications; and
- (2) The sentence length within the range should be adjusted, as appropriate, by the presence or absence of mitigating and enhancement factors set out in §§ 40-35-113 and 40-35-114.
- (d) The sentence length within the range should be consistent with the purposes and principles of this chapter.
- (e)
- (1) In order to ensure fair and consistent sentencing, at a sentencing hearing the court shall place on the record, either orally or in writing, the following:
- (A) What enhancing or mitigating factors were considered, if any;
- (B) The reasons for the sentence; and
- (C) For a sentence of continuous confinement, the estimated number of years and months the defendant will serve before becoming eligible for release.
- (2) The department of correction shall provide the court with a form to assist in determining the estimation referenced in subdivision (e)(1)(C).
- (3) The estimation provided pursuant to subdivision (e)(1)(C) is not a basis for post-conviction relief or for a direct appeal of the defendant's sentence.
- (1) In order to ensure fair and consistent sentencing, at a sentencing hearing the court shall place on the record, either orally or in writing, the following:
- (f) A sentence must be based on evidence in the record of the trial, the sentencing hearing, the presentence report, the validated risk and needs assessment, and the record of prior felony convictions filed by the district attorney general with the court, as required by § 40-35-202(a).
- (g) When the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or imposes a sentence on a defendant who has been convicted of a felony offense that occurred on or after July 1, 2021, the court shall specify in its order that the defendant may be subject to an additional year of mandatory reentry supervision pursuant to § 40-35-506 if, at the time of release, the defendant is not an eligible inmate as defined in § 40-35-506.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 952, s 2, eff. 7/1/2022.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 410, s 16, eff. 5/12/2021.
Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 906, s 10, eff. 1/1/2017.
Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 906, s 9, eff. 1/1/2017.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6; 1995, ch. 493, § 1; 1998, ch. 914, § 1; 2000, ch. 800, § 2; 2005, ch. 353, § 6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,384
cases (286 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012).
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Acts 788 (codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (2006)). 30 Prior to the effective date of these amendments, however, this Court decided Gomez I, 163 S.”
State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2005). “" Sentencing Comm'n Comments to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (emphasis added).”
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008). “§ 40-35-210(b). As did the earlier statute, the revised section -210 requires the trial court to “place on the record, either orally or in writing, what enhancement or mitigating factors were considered, if any, as well as the reasons for the sentence, in order to ensure fair…”
State v. Ross, 49 S.W.3d 833 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210, Sentencing Commission Comments; see also Ashby, 823 S.”
State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). “” 51 The phrase “mitigating factors”, as used in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (Supp.1989), refers to the mitigating factors enumerated in Tenn.”
State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn. 1994). “§ 40-35-209(c) (1990) and T.C.A. § 40-35-210® (1990), the trial court did not articulate the enhancement or mitigating factors upon which it relied in sentencing the defendant.”
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). “T.C.A. § 40-35-210 intends that the sentencing court retains substantial, although guided discretion in sentencing determinations.”
State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007). “7 Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (c) (Supp.2001).”
State v. Arnett, 49 S.W.3d 250 (Tenn. 2001). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (b) (1997). If the appellate court determines that “the trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, imposed a lawful sentence after having given due consideration and proper weight to the factors and principles set out under the…”
State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008). “§ 40-35-210 required it to consider and that the four remaining enhancement factors more than adequately support the trial court’s discretionary decision to impose twenty-five year sentences for these two crimes.”
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013). “41 (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e)). Consistent with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-210(e), our ruling in Bise specifically requires trial courts to articulate the reasons for the sentence in accordance with the purposes and principles of sentencing in order for…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(0) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Lester Arnold Clouse (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(1) — 1 case
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.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(2) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Jaron Lee Goodson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Donald E. Fentress (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(6) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Tommy Gene Couch, Sr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Joe Allen Brown (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(6)(c) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Joe Allen Brown (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(B) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Hunter Lowery (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(C) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Ken Sexton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(a) — 129 cases
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Acts 788 (codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (2006)). 30 Prior to the effective date of these amendments, however, this Court decided Gomez I, 163 S.”
State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). “” 51 The phrase “mitigating factors”, as used in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (Supp.1989), refers to the mitigating factors enumerated in Tenn.”
State of Tennessee v. Perry A. March, 293 S.W.3d 576 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
Terrance Lavar Davis v. State of Tennessee, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2010).
State v. Gann, 251 S.W.3d 446 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b) — 463 cases
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Acts 788 (codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (2006)). 30 Prior to the effective date of these amendments, however, this Court decided Gomez I, 163 S.”
State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2005). “" Sentencing Comm'n Comments to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (emphasis added).”
State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2002).
State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008). “§ 40-35-210 required it to consider and that the four remaining enhancement factors more than adequately support the trial court’s discretionary decision to impose twenty-five year sentences for these two crimes.”
State v. Franklin, 308 S.W.3d 799 (Tenn. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b)(1) — 71 cases
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014).
State of Tennessee v. Anita Marie Strickland (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
Lonnie Lee Owens v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Fralix (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Clark Naifeh (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b)(2) — 10 cases
State v. Cross, 362 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2012).
State v. Baker, 956 S.W.2d 8 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State v. Robinson, 971 S.W.2d 30 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State v. Embry, 915 S.W.2d 451 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State of Tennessee v. Matthew Tyrone Sisson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b)(3) — 8 cases
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008). “§ 40-35-210(b). As did the earlier statute, the revised section -210 requires the trial court to “place on the record, either orally or in writing, what enhancement or mitigating factors were considered, if any, as well as the reasons for the sentence, in order to ensure fair…”
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Acts 788 (codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (2006)). 30 Prior to the effective date of these amendments, however, this Court decided Gomez I, 163 S.”
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Deshawn Mitchell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Steven Thacker (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Monalito Clark (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b)(4) — 33 cases
State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
State v. Pierce, 138 S.W.3d 820 (Tenn. 2004).
State v. Baker, 966 S.W.2d 429 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State v. Blackhurst, 70 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
State v. Grissom, 956 S.W.2d 514 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b)(5) — 123 cases
State of Tennessee v. Jessie Dotson, 450 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014).
State v. Zeolia, 928 S.W.2d 457 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State v. Housewright, 982 S.W.2d 354 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State v. Gutierrez, 5 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b)(5)(d)(e) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Denise Wiggins (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b)(6) — 16 cases
State v. Keathly, 145 S.W.3d 123 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
State v. Stephenson, 878 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn. 1994).
State of Tennessee v. Dylan Ray Thompson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Wayne Evans (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Henderson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b)(7) — 8 cases
State of Tennessee v. Jermaine Mitchell Gray (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Thomas A. Isbell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Wayne Evans (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Detrick Turner (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
State of Tennessee v. Boone Beverly (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b)(7)(2003) — 1 case
Joseph B. Thompson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b)(8) — 4 cases
State of Tennessee v. Christopher C. Solomon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Jared Ross (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Jay Burroughs Chandler (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
State of Tennessee v. Roger Trino Spencer, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c) — 561 cases
State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2005). “" Sentencing Comm'n Comments to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (emphasis added).”
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Acts 788 (codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (2006)). 30 Prior to the effective date of these amendments, however, this Court decided Gomez I, 163 S.”
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008). “§ 40-35-210(b). As did the earlier statute, the revised section -210 requires the trial court to “place on the record, either orally or in writing, what enhancement or mitigating factors were considered, if any, as well as the reasons for the sentence, in order to ensure fair…”
State v. Hester, 324 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2010).
State v. Ross, 49 S.W.3d 833 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210, Sentencing Commission Comments; see also Ashby, 823 S.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c)(1) — 30 cases
Renwick A. Earls, Jr. v. Howard Carlton, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Jerica Elizabeth Taylor (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
State of Tennessee v. Daryl Bobo (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
State of Tennessee v. Upton Dabney, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Terrell Church (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c)(1990) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Rhonda Rock (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c)(2) — 70 cases
State v. Osborne, 251 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
State of Tennessee v. Michael W. Parsons, 437 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State v. Saint, 284 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Wayne Tripp (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Joseph John Borger (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c)(2003) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Dwayne Welcome, 280 S.W.3d 215 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c)(2006) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Serena Carter (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
State of Tennessee v. Terrance Patterson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c)(2010) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Mousen Yisak Aden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(d) — 289 cases
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Acts 788 (codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (2006)). 30 Prior to the effective date of these amendments, however, this Court decided Gomez I, 163 S.”
State v. Ross, 49 S.W.3d 833 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210, Sentencing Commission Comments; see also Ashby, 823 S.”
State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2005). “" Sentencing Comm'n Comments to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (emphasis added).”
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “T.C.A. § 40-35-210 intends that the sentencing court retains substantial, although guided discretion in sentencing determinations.”
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008). “§ 40-35-210(b). As did the earlier statute, the revised section -210 requires the trial court to “place on the record, either orally or in writing, what enhancement or mitigating factors were considered, if any, as well as the reasons for the sentence, in order to ensure fair…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(d)(1997) — 1 case
State v. Richard A. Green (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(d)(2010) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Mousen Yisak Aden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e) — 505 cases
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013). “41 (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e)). Consistent with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-210(e), our ruling in Bise specifically requires trial courts to articulate the reasons for the sentence in accordance with the purposes and principles of sentencing in order for…”
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Acts 788 (codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (2006)). 30 Prior to the effective date of these amendments, however, this Court decided Gomez I, 163 S.”
State v. Arnett, 49 S.W.3d 250 (Tenn. 2001). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (b) (1997). If the appellate court determines that “the trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, imposed a lawful sentence after having given due consideration and proper weight to the factors and principles set out under the…”
State of Tennessee v. Kacy Dewayne Cannon, 254 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. 2008).
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e)(1) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Hunter Lowery (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Jevon Brodie & Tavares Harbison (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e)(1990) — 1 case
State v. Mayes (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e)(1997) — 1 case
State v. Gutierrez, 5 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e)(3) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Ambreia Tavaris Washington (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(f) — 201 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. Arnett, 49 S.W.3d 250 (Tenn. 2001). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (b) (1997). If the appellate court determines that “the trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, imposed a lawful sentence after having given due consideration and proper weight to the factors and principles set out under the…”
State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995).
State v. Embry, 915 S.W.2d 451 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Dwayne Welcome, 280 S.W.3d 215 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(f)(1990) — 1 case
State v. Anderson, 985 S.W.2d 9 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(g) — 9 cases
State v. Nunley, 22 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000).
State v. Raines, 882 S.W.2d 376 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
State v. Cooper, 977 S.W.2d 130 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Martin Reaves, alias, Roland Lee Mallin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005).
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.