Imposition of Fine
Unless otherwise indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
State v. Johnson, No. W2022-00234-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 10, 2023).
Therefore, this court reviews a trial court’s imposition of a fine under an abuse of discretion standard, granting a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentences that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act. See State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Johnny Jackson, Jr., No. W2021-00208-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 370090, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 8, 2022). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010).
To facilitate meaningful appellate review, the trial court must state on the record the sentencing principles it considered and the reasons for the sentence imposed. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e)(1)(B); Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705. Mere inadequacy in the articulation of the reasons, however, should not negate the presumption [of reasonableness].” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705. This court will uphold the trial court’s sentencing decision “so long as it is within the appropriate range and the record demonstrates that the sentence is otherwise in compliance with the purposes and principles listed by statute.” Id. at 709-10.
