Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210

Imposition of sentence — Evidence to be considered — Presumptive sentence — Sentence explanation

Known as the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act

The act spans §§ 40–40 (69 sections).

Applied in 115 court decisions — leading case Cunningham v. California (2007)

Most recently applied in State of Tennessee v. Jonathan David Patterson (December 2018)

Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6; 1995, ch. 493, § 1; 1998, ch. 914, § 1; 2000, ch. 800, § 2; 2005, ch. 353, § 6; 2016, ch. 906, §§ 9, 10.

How often courts cite this section

1990200020102018130
citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

(1) At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the court shall first determine the appropriate range of sentence.

(2) 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: The evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing;

(3) The presentence report;

(4) The principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives;

(5) The nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved;

(6) Evidence and information offered by the parties on the mitigating and enhancement factors set out in §§ 40-35-113 and 40-35-114;

(7) Any statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee;

(8) Any statement the defendant wishes to make on the defendant's own behalf about sentencing; and

(9) The result of the validated risk and needs assessment conducted by the department and contained in the presentence report.

(10) 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: 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

(11) 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.

(12) The sentence length within the range should be consistent with the purposes and principles of this chapter.

(13) When the court imposes a sentence, it shall 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 and consistent sentencing.

(14) 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).

Current official text: Tennessee Code (LexisNexis). Digitized from the UniCourt Code Improvement Commission public-domain capture. Reproduced from public-domain Tennessee statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.