Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (2026)
Appeal of sentence by defendant - Time for filing - Grounds - Determination - Standard
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) The defendant in a criminal case may appeal from the length, range or the manner of service of the sentence imposed by the sentencing court. The defendant may also appeal the imposition of consecutive sentences. An appeal pursuant to this section shall be taken within the same time and in the same manner as other appeals in criminal cases. If there is an appeal of the conviction, the appeal of the sentence shall be taken at the same time. There is no appellate review of the sentence in a postconviction or habeas corpus proceeding.
- (b) An appeal from a sentence may be on one (1) or more of the following grounds:
- (1) The sentence was not imposed in accordance with this chapter;
- (2) The sentence is excessive under the sentencing considerations set out in §§ 40-35-103 and 40-35-210; or
- (3) The sentence is inconsistent with the purposes of sentencing set out in §§ 40-35-102 and 40-35-103.
- (c) If a sentence is appealed, the appellate court may:
- (1) Dismiss the appeal;
- (2) Affirm, reduce, vacate or set aside the sentence imposed;
- (3) Remand the case or direct the entry of an appropriate sentence or order; or
- (4) Direct any further proceedings appropriate or required under the circumstances.
- (d) When reviewing sentencing issues raised pursuant to subsection (a), including the granting or denial of probation and the length of sentence, the appellate court shall conduct a de novo review on the record of the issues. The review shall be conducted with a presumption that the determinations made by the court from which the appeal is taken are correct.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6; 2005, ch. 353, § 8.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4,079
cases (178 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · 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). “Second, the provisions governing appellate review state that the defendant or the State “may appeal from the length, range or the manner of service of the sentence imposed by the sentencing court,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (a) (emphasis added); see also id.”
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-401(a), (d) (2010).”
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011). “” Even if the holding in Edwards is so limited, I see no logic in differentiating between offender classification and release eligibility determinations for purposes of discerning whether a sentence imposed by a trial court is illegal. The 1989 Act refers to the types of errors…”
State v. Yoreck, 133 S.W.3d 606 (Tenn. 2004). “Limitations on Appellate Jurisdiction Finally, we address the State’s argument that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-401 limits the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals.”
State v. Osborne, 251 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “§ 40-35-401, Sentencing Commission Comments.”
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008). “§§ 40-35-401, -402 (2006). The burden of demonstrating that a sentence is erroneous is upon the party appealing.”
State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (1997); Ashby, 823 S.”
State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995). “The Sentencing Commission Comments to Section 40-35-401 state, The primary change from prior law is that appellate review, while still de novo, must be conducted with “a presumption that the determinations made by the court from which the appeal is taken are correct.”
State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. 1998). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (1990) (noting that defendant carries the burden of establishing impropriety of sentence); see also Tenn.”
State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-401(b)(2) (2006). When reviewing a sentence, an appellate court must review the record de novo and must presume that the determinations made by the court from which the appeal is taken — in this case the Court of Criminal Appeals — are correct.”
State v. Taylor, 63 S.W.3d 400 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “Sentencing Commission Comments, Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-401. If the trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, made findings of fact that are adequately supported in the record, and gave due consideration and proper weight to the factors and principles relevant to…”
State v. Hester, 324 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2010). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-401, sentencing comm’n cmts.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(2) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Patty Grissom (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(a) — 50 cases
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-401(a), (d) (2010).”
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011). “” Even if the holding in Edwards is so limited, I see no logic in differentiating between offender classification and release eligibility determinations for purposes of discerning whether a sentence imposed by a trial court is illegal. The 1989 Act refers to the types of errors…”
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Second, the provisions governing appellate review state that the defendant or the State “may appeal from the length, range or the manner of service of the sentence imposed by the sentencing court,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (a) (emphasis added); see also id.”
State v. Osborne, 251 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “§ 40-35-401, Sentencing Commission Comments.”
State v. Cross, 362 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(b) — 19 cases
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Second, the provisions governing appellate review state that the defendant or the State “may appeal from the length, range or the manner of service of the sentence imposed by the sentencing court,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (a) (emphasis added); see also id.”
State v. Osborne, 251 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “§ 40-35-401, Sentencing Commission Comments.”
State of Tennessee v. Carlos A. Branch & Edward Allen, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009).
State of Tennessee v. William Keith Gillum (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
State of Tennessee v. Jerome Emmett Huntley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(b)(1) — 7 cases
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Second, the provisions governing appellate review state that the defendant or the State “may appeal from the length, range or the manner of service of the sentence imposed by the sentencing court,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (a) (emphasis added); see also id.”
State of Tennessee v. Karl Daniel Forss (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Lee Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Lee Noe (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
State of Tennessee v. Jackie Allen (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(b)(2) — 41 cases
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008). “§§ 40-35-401, -402 (2006). The burden of demonstrating that a sentence is erroneous is upon the party appealing.”
State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-401(b)(2) (2006). When reviewing a sentence, an appellate court must review the record de novo and must presume that the determinations made by the court from which the appeal is taken — in this case the Court of Criminal Appeals — are correct.”
State of Tennessee v. Freeman Ray Harrison, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Randall Coleman (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Patrick L. Maliani (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(b)(2)(2004) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Steven D. Pippin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(b)(2006) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. William Keith Gillum (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(b)(3) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Charles E. Mason, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(b)(l) — 1 case
State v. Osborne, 251 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “§ 40-35-401, Sentencing Commission Comments.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(c) — 11 cases
State v. Yoreck, 133 S.W.3d 606 (Tenn. 2004). “Limitations on Appellate Jurisdiction Finally, we address the State’s argument that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-401 limits the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals.”
State of Tennessee v. Perry A. March, 293 S.W.3d 576 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn. 1994).
State v. Williams, 52 S.W.3d 109 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
State v. Clifton, 880 S.W.2d 737 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(c)(2) — 22 cases
State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007).
State v. Gutierrez, 5 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. 1999).
State v. Osborne, 251 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “§ 40-35-401, Sentencing Commission Comments.”
State of Tennessee v. Perry Avram March, 494 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State v. Rolland, 861 S.W.2d 840 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(c)(3) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Phillip Harris (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(c)(4) — 1 case
State v. Yoreck, 133 S.W.3d 606 (Tenn. 2004). “Limitations on Appellate Jurisdiction Finally, we address the State’s argument that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-401 limits the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) — 1075 cases
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). “Second, the provisions governing appellate review state that the defendant or the State “may appeal from the length, range or the manner of service of the sentence imposed by the sentencing court,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (a) (emphasis added); see also id.”
State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (1997); Ashby, 823 S.”
State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995). “The Sentencing Commission Comments to Section 40-35-401 state, The primary change from prior law is that appellate review, while still de novo, must be conducted with “a presumption that the determinations made by the court from which the appeal is taken are correct.”
State v. Nunley, 22 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
State v. Freeman, 943 S.W.2d 25 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d)(1990) — 2 cases
State v. Boggs, 932 S.W.2d 467 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State v. Davis, 940 S.W.2d 558 (Tenn. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d)(1997) — 7 cases
State v. Fields, 40 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2001).
State v. Pettus, 986 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn. 1999).
State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456 (Tenn. 1999).
State v. Blackmon, 78 S.W.3d 322 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
State of Tennessee v. Danny Wayne Ratliff (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d)(2006) — 6 cases
State of Tennessee v. Patricia Adkisson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
State of Tennessee v. Adrian Leroy Scott (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
State of Tennessee v. Michael Anthony Saunders (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Nakia Bohanan (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Keith A. Howard (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(e) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Charvasea Rodshun Lancaster (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. John Shaffighi (Tenn. Crim. App. 2023).
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.