Sentencing Within Range, Including Enhancing and Mitigating Factors

Except as 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. Peat, No. W2022-01348-CCA-R3-CD, p. 11-12 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 18, 2023).

State v. Crabtree, No. W2022-01008-CCA-R3-CD, p. 13 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 22, 2023).

State v. Schutt, No. M2022-00905-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 19, 2023).

State v. Murphy, No. W2022-01682-CCA-R3-CD, p. 6-7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2023).

State v. Paschel, No. E2022-00900-CCA-R3-CD, p. 14-15 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2023).

State v. Jenkins, No. M2022-00693-CCA-R3-CD, p. 27 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 8, 2023).

State v. Chatman, No. M2022-00377-CCA-R3-CD, p. 19-20 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 22, 2023).

State v. Johnson, No. W2022-00425-CCA-R3-CD, p. 44 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 24, 2023).

State v. Livingston, No. W2022-01474-CCA-R3-CD, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 10, 2023).

State v. Mabe, No. E2022-00149-CCA-R3-CD, p. 11 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 7, 2023).

State v. Wells, No. M2022-00512-CCA-R3-CD, p. 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2023).

State v. Hite, No. W2022-00678-CCA-R3-CD, p. 29 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 19, 2023).

State v. Raines, No. E2022-01045-CCA-R3-CD, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 12, 2023).

State v. Rimmel, No. M2022-00794-CCA-R3-CD, p. 10-11 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 7, 2023).

State v. Crode, No. M2021-01371-CCA-R3-CD, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 31, 2023).

State v. Samson, No. M2022-00148-CCA-R3-CD, p. 48 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 3, 2023).

State v. Garrity, No. M2022-00725-CCA-R3-CD, p. 13 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. April 18, 2023).

State v. Coleman, No. M2022-00278-CCA-R3-CD, p. 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 4, 2023).

State v. Anderson, No. M2022-00262-CCA-R3-CD, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 24, 2023).

State v. Johnson, No. E2022-00302-CCA-R3-CD, p. 24 (Tenn. Ct Crim. App. Mar. 20, 2023).

State v. Crabtree, No. M2021-01154-CCA-R3-CD, p. 22-23 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 21, 2023).

To facilitate meaningful appellate review, the trial court must state on the record the factors it considered and the reasons for imposing the sentence chosen. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e) (2020); State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 682, 706 (Tenn. 2012). Although the trial court should consider enhancement and mitigating factors, such factors are advisory only. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114 (2020); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698 n. 33, 704; State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008). We note that “a trial court’s weighing of various mitigating and enhancement factors [is] left to the trial court’s sound discretion.” Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 345. In other words, “the trial court is free to select any sentence within the applicable range so long as the length of the sentence is ‘consistent with the purposes and principles of [the Sentencing Act].’” Id. at 343 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(d)). A trial court’s “misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor does not invalidate the sentence imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from the 1989 Act, as amended in 2005.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706. “[Appellate courts are] bound by a trial court’s decision as to the length of the sentence imposed so long as it is imposed in a manner consistent with the purposes and principles set out in sections -102 and -103 of the Sentencing Act.” Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 346.

When the record clearly establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range after a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 707. The party challenging the sentence on appeal bears the burden of establishing that the sentence was improper. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (2020), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.

State v. Howell, No. W2022-00337-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7-8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 3, 2023).

When an accused challenges the length of a sentence or manner of service, this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing determination under an abuse of discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012); see also State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012) (applying the Bise standard to “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence”). The party challenging the sentence imposed by the trial court has the burden of establishing that the sentence is erroneous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.; see also State v. Arnett, 49 S.W.3d 250, 257 (Tenn. 2001).

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.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709- 10. Moreover, under such circumstances, appellate courts may not disturb the sentence even if we had preferred a different result. See Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 346. Those purposes and principles include “the imposition of a sentence justly deserved in relation to the seriousness of the offense,” Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-102(1), a punishment sufficient “to prevent crime and promote respect for the law,” Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-102(3), and consideration of a defendant’s “potential or lack of potential for . . . rehabilitation,” Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103(5). See id. at 344. Ultimately, in sentencing a defendant, a trial court should impose a sentence that is “no greater than that deserved for the offense committed” and is “the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(2), (4).

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. A sentence should be upheld if the trial court provided “enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and [that it] has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] . . . legal decision making.” Id. (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-57 (2007)).

State v. Burns, No. W2021-00939-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 20, 2023).

We review the length and manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). Before a trial court imposes a sentence upon a defendant, it must consider: (a) the evidence adduced at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (b) the presentence report; (c) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (d) the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (e) evidence and information offered by the parties on the enhancement and mitigating factors set forth inTennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-113 and40-35-114; (f) any statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to Tennessee sentencing practices for similar offenses; (g) any statement the defendant wishes to make in the defendant’s own behalf about sentencing; and (h) the result of the validated risk and needs assessment conducted by the department and contained in the presentence report. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b). Appellate courts may not disturb the sentence even if we had preferred a different result. See State v. Carter, 254S.W.3d335,346(Tenn. 2007).

State v. Primm, No. M2021-00976-CCA-R3-CD, p. 60 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 13, 2023).

When the record clearly establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range after a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 707. The party challenging the sentence on appeal bears the burden of establishing that the sentence was improper. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (2020), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.

In State v. Pollard, the Tennessee Supreme Court expanded its holding in Bise to trial courts’ decisions regarding consecutive sentencing. 432 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Tenn. 2013). “So long as a trial court properly articulates reasons for ordering consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the sentences will be presumed reasonable and, absent an abuse of discretion, upheld on appeal.” Id. at 862 (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1)).

State v. Greenman, No. M2021-01061-CCA-R3-CD, p. 21 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 27, 2022).

“Sentences imposed by the trial court within the appropriate statutory range are to be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)). To find an abuse of discretion, the record must be void of any substantial evidence that would support the trial court’s decision. Id. at 554-55; State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). The reviewing court should uphold the sentence “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.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709-10. So long as the trial court sentences within the appropriate range and properly applies the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act, its decision will be granted a presumption of reasonableness. Id. at 707.

The misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor does not remove the presumption of reasonableness from a trial court’s sentencing decision. Id. A reviewing court should not invalidate a sentence on this basis unless the trial court wholly departed from the principles of the Sentencing Act. Id. So long as there are other reasons consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing, a sentence within the appropriate range should be upheld. Id.

State v. Cochran, No. E2022-00600-CCA-R3-CD, p. 16 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 27, 2022).

This court reviews challenges to the length of a sentence within the appropriate sentence range “under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012).

State v. Stinnett, No. M2021-01266-CCA-R3-CD, p. 17 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 15, 2022).

In Bise, the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted “an abuse of discretion standard of review, granting a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The 2005 amendments to the sentencing act “served to increase the discretionary authority of trial courts in sentencing.” Id. at 708. In light of this broader discretion, “sentences should be upheld so long as the statutory purposes and principles, along with any applicable enhancement and mitigating factors, have been properly addressed.” Id. at 706.

State v. Gray, No. E2021-01134-CCA-R3-CD, p. 19-20 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2022).

This court reviews the length, range, and manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); see State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014) (applying the Bise standard to “all sentencing decisions”); State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012) (applying the Bise standard to alternative sentencing). In determining a defendant’s sentence, the trial court considers the following factors: (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 enhancement and mitigating factors; (6) any statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee; (7) any statement by the defendant in his own behalf; and (8) the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102, -103, -210; see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 697-98. The burden is on the Defendant to demonstrate the impropriety of his sentence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401, Sent’g Comm’n Cmts.

Where a defendant is convicted of one or more offenses, the trial court has discretion to decide whether the sentences shall be served concurrently or consecutively. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(a). The Tennessee Supreme Court has held, “[T]he abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to consecutive sentencing determinations.” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013). As relevant here, the trial court may order multiple offenses to be served consecutively if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is a professional criminal who has knowingly devoted the defendant’s life to criminal acts as a major source of livelihood, the defendant is an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive, or the defendant is sentenced for an offense committed while on probation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 115(b)(1), (2), (6). In determining whether confinement is appropriate, the trial court should consider the following principles:

(A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct;

(B) Confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense or confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses; or

(C) Measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant[.]

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(A)-(C) (2019). This court must give “deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b).” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 861. Additionally, the sentence imposed should be (1) “no greater than that deserved for the offense committed,” and (2) “the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.” Id. § 40-35-103(2), -103(4).

State v. Murray, No. M2021-00688-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9-10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2022).

Our supreme court has adopted an abuse of discretion standard of review for sentencing and has prescribed “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The application of the purposes and principles of sentencing involves a consideration of “[t]he potential or lack of potential for the rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant . . . in determining the sentence alternative or length of a term to be imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(5). Trial courts are “required under the 2005 amendments 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 and consistent sentencing.’” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698- 99 (quoting T.C.A. § 40-35-210(e)). Under the holding in Bise, “[a] sentence should be upheld 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.

The standard of review adopted in Bise “applies similarly” to the imposition of consecutive sentences, “giving deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b).” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 861 (Tenn. 2013). In State v. Wilkerson, the supreme court held that the trial court must find that consecutive sentences are reasonably related to the severity of the offenses committed and are necessary to protect the public from further criminal conduct before utilizing the “dangerous offender” category to impose consecutive sentencing, see State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 937-39 (Tenn. 1995), and “[t]he adoption of the abuse of discretion standard with the presumption of reasonableness has not eliminated this requirement,” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 863.

State v. Jamison, No. M2021-01302-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 29, 2022).

The trial court has broad discretion to impose a sentence anywhere within the applicable range, regardless of the presence or absence of enhancement or mitigating factors, and “sentences should be upheld so long as the statutory purposes and principles, along with any enhancement and mitigating factors, have been properly addressed.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 706 (Term. 2012). Accordingly, we review a trial court’s sentencing determinations under an abuse of discretion standard, “granting a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” Id. at 707. In State v. Caudle, our Supreme Court clarified that the “abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to within-range sentences that reflect a decision based upon the purposes and principles of sentencing, including the questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). Under the Sentencing Act, trial courts are to consider the following factors when determining a defendant’s sentence and the appropriate combination of sentencing alternatives:

(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 in the defendant’s own behalf about sentencing; and

(8) The result of the validated risk and needs assessment conducted by the department [of correction] and contained in the presentence report.

T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b).

In misdemeanor sentencing, “while the better practice is to make findings on the record when fixing a percentage of a defendant’s sentence to be served in incarceration, a trial court need only consider the principles of sentencing and enhancement and mitigating factors in order to comply with the legislative mandates of the misdemeanor sentencing statute.” State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271, 274 (Tenn. 1998). Thus, the trial court is afforded considerable latitude in misdemeanor sentencing. See State v. Johnson, 15 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). The “Bise standard is the appropriate standard of review in misdemeanor sentencing cases.” State v. Gregory Gill, No. W2018-00331-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 549651, at *16 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 11, 2019).

Trial courts are “required … 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 and consistent sentencing.’ ” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698-99 (quoting T.C.A. § 40-35-210(e)). Under the holding in Bise, “[a] sentence should be upheld 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. Although the trial court should consider enhancement and mitigating factors, the statutory enhancement factors are advisory only. See T.C.A. § 40-35-114; see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 701. Moreover, a trial court is “guided by – but not bound by – any applicable enhancement or mitigating factors when adjusting the length of a sentence[,]” and its “misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor does not invalidate the sentence imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from the 1989 Act, as amended in 2005.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706.

State v. Szostak, No. M2021-00443-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 29, 2022).

In State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012), the supreme court explicitly held “that the abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to within-range sentences that reflect a decision based upon the purposes and principles of sentencing, including the questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.”

State v. Blackwell, No. M2020-01171-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2022).

When the record clearly establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range after a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The party challenging the sentence on appeal bears the burden of establishing that the sentence was improper. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (2021), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.

State v. McBee, No. E2021-01048-CCA-R3-CD, p. 31 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 9, 2022).

When an accused challenges the length of a sentence, this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing determinations under an abuse of discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). “This abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to within-range sentences that reflect a decision based upon the purposes and principles of sentencing.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). See also State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 859-60 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of appellate review for consecutive sentencing is abuse of discretion accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness). A finding of abuse of discretion indicates the “trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court has not abused its discretion unless “the record [is] void of any substantial evidence that would support the trial court’s decision.” Id.

State v. Simpson, No. M2021-01031-CCA-R3-CD, p. 31-32 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 31, 2022).

When the record establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range that reflects a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).

State v. Parrish, No. M2021-01452-CCA-R3-CD, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 20, 2022).

When the record establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range that reflects a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this Court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).

State v. Still, No. E2021-01009-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 11, 2022).

We review the length and manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). “So long as there are other reasons consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing, as provided by statute, a sentence imposed by the trial court within the appropriate range should be upheld.” Id. This standard of review also applies to “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court only abuses its discretion when it “applie[s] an incorrect legal standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the party complaining.” State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn. 1997). The defendant has the burden of showing the impropriety of the sentence on appeal. T.C.A. §40-35401(d), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts. “The potential or lack of potential for the rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant should be considered in determining the sentence alternative or length of a term to be imposed.” Id. § 40-35- 103(5). The trial court must also impose a sentence “no greater than that deserved for the offense committed” and “the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.” Id. §§ 40-35-103(2), (4). Finally, the “trial court’s decision to grant or deny probation will not be invalidated unless the trial court wholly departed from the relevant statutory considerations in reaching its determination.” State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Tenn. 2014).

State v. Fouse, No. W2021-00380-CCA-R3-CD, p. 11 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 10, 2022).

When an accused challenges the length and manner of service of a sentence, this Court reviews the trial court’s sentencing determination under an abuse of discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). If a trial court misapplies an enhancement or mitigating factor in passing sentence, said error will not remove the presumption of reasonableness from its sentencing determination. Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709. 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. Moreover, under such circumstances, appellate courts may not disturb the sentence even if we had preferred a different result. See State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008). The party challenging the sentence imposed by the trial court has the burden of establishing that the sentence is erroneous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.; State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991).

State v. Baker, No. W2021-00085-CCA-R3-CD, p. 28 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 10, 2022).

We review the length and manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). Moreover, “a trial court’s misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor does not invalidate the sentence imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from the 1989 Act, as amended in 2005.” Id. “So long as there are other reasons consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing, as provided by statute, a sentence imposed by the trial court within the appropriate range should be upheld.” Id.

State v. Dixon, No. M2021-01326-CCA-R3-CD, p. 31 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 6, 2022).

“[Appellate courts are] bound by a trial court’s decision as to the length of the sentence imposed so long as it is imposed in a manner consistent with the purposes and principles set out in sections -102 and -103 of the Sentencing Act.” Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 346.

When the record clearly establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range after a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 707. The party challenging the sentence on appeal bears the burden of establishing that the sentence was improper. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (2020), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.

State v. Stinson, No. W2021-01103-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 27, 2022).

This court reviews challenges to the length of a sentence within the appropriate sentence range “under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court must consider any evidence received at the trial and sentencing hearing, the presentence report, the principles of sentencing, counsel’s arguments as to sentencing alternatives, the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct, any mitigating or statutory enhancement factors, statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee, any statement that the defendant made on his own behalf, the result of the validated risk and needs assessment conducted by the department and contained in the presentence report, and the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991) (citing T.C.A. §§ 40-35-103, -210; State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 236 (Tenn. 1986); State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)); see T.C.A. § 40-35-102 (2018). “Mere inadequacy in the articulation of the reasons for imposing a particular sentence, however, should not negate the presumption.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705-06. There “is no requirement that such reasoning be particularly lengthy or detailed,” and “sentences should be upheld so long as the statutory purposes and principles, along with any applicable enhancement and mitigating factors, have been properly addressed.” Id. at 706.

State v. Stodghill, No. M2021-01502-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3-4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 27, 2022).

Our supreme court has adopted an abuse of discretion standard of review for sentencing and has prescribed “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The application of the purposes and principles of sentencing involves a consideration of “[t]he potential or lack of potential for the rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant . . . in determining the sentence alternative or length of a term to be imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(5). Trial courts are “required under the 2005 amendments 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 and consistent sentencing.’” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698- 99 (quoting T.C.A. § 40-35-210(e)). Under the holding in Bise, “[a] sentence should be upheld 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. The abuse-of-discretion standard of review and the presumption of reasonableness also applies to “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012).

State v. Richmond, No. M2021-01025-CCA-R3-CD, p. 20 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 22, 2022).

Ordinarily, this court reviews the length, range, and manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); see State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012) (applying the Bise standard to alternative sentencing).

State v. Russell, No. E2021-01389-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 31, 2022).

Our supreme court has adopted an abuse of discretion standard of review for sentencing and has prescribed “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The application of the purposes and principles of sentencing involves a consideration of “[t]he potential or lack of potential for the rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant . . . in determining the sentence alternative or length of a term to be imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(5). Trial courts are “required under the 2005 amendments 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 and consistent sentencing.’” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698- 99 (quoting T.C.A. § 40-35-210(e)). Under the holding in Bise, “[a] sentence should be upheld 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. The abuse-of-discretion standard of review and the presumption of reasonableness also applies to “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012).

State v. Crawford, No. E2021-01351-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 24, 2022).

When an accused challenges the length and manner of service of a sentence, this Court reviews the trial court’s sentencing determination under an abuse of discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). If a trial court misapplies an enhancing or mitigating factor in passing sentence, said error will not remove the presumption of reasonableness from its sentencing determination. Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709. 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. Moreover, under such circumstances, appellate courts may not disturb the sentence even if we had preferred a different result. See State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008). The party challenging the sentence imposed by the trial court has the burden of establishing that the sentence is erroneous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.; State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991).

State v. Shaw, No. E2021-00437-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7-8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 25, 2022).

This court reviews challenges to the length of a sentence within the appropriate sentence range “under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court must consider any evidence received at the trial and sentencing hearing, the presentence report, the principles of sentencing, counsel’s arguments as to sentencing alternatives, the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct, any mitigating or statutory enhancement factors, statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee, any statement that the defendant made on his own behalf, the potential for rehabilitation or treatment, and the result of the validated risk and needs assessment. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-103 (2019), -210 (2019); State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991); State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 236 (Tenn. 1986); State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)); see T.C.A. § 40-35-102 (2019).

Likewise, a trial court’s application of enhancement and mitigating factors are reviewed for an abuse of discretion with “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706-07. “[A] trial court’s misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor does not invalidate the sentence imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from the 1989 Act, as amended in 2005.” Id. at 706. “So long as there are other reasons consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing, as provided by statute, a sentence imposed . . . within the appropriate range” will be upheld on appeal. Id.

State v. Greer, No. W2021-01329-CCA-R3-CD, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 25, 2022).

This court reviews a trial court’s sentencing determinations under “an abuse of discretion standard of review, granting a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court abuses its discretion only when it applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the party complaining. State v. Herron, 461 S.W.3d 890, 904 (Tenn. 2015). The 2005 amendments to the Sentencing Act “served to increase the discretionary authority of trial courts in sentencing.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 708. In particular, these amendments “rendered advisory the manner in which the trial court selects a sentence within the appropriate range, allowing the trial court to be guided by— but not bound by—any applicable enhancement or mitigating factors when adjusting the length of a sentence.” Id. at 706. “[W]hile a trial court’s less comprehensive findings may require appellate courts to more carefully review the record, sentences should be upheld so long as the statutory purposes and principles, along with any applicable enhancement and mitigating factors, have been properly addressed.” Id. When imposing a sentence, a trial court “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.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e).

State v. Benning, No. E2021-00889-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 18, 2022).

This court reviews the length of a sentence for abuse of discretion, applying “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). A sentence will be upheld “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.

State v. Martin, No. M2021-00667-CCA-R3-CD, p. 23 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 16, 2022).

This court reviews the length, range, and manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 79 (Tenn. 2012) (applying the standard to alternative sentencing).

State v. Erwin, No. E2021-01232-CCA-R3-CD, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 15, 2022).

When an accused challenges the length and manner of service of a sentence, this Court reviews the trial court’s sentencing determination under an abuse of discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). If a trial court misapplies an enhancement or mitigating factor in passing sentence, said error will not remove the presumption of reasonableness from its sentencing determination. Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709. 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. Moreover, under such circumstances, appellate courts may not disturb the sentence even if we had preferred a different result. See State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008). The party challenging the sentence imposed by the trial court has the burden of establishing that the sentence is erroneous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.; State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991).

State v. Looper, No. M2021-00652-CCA-R3-CD, p. 14 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 11, 2022).

It is well settled that this court reviews within-range sentences and alternative sentences imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W. 3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). Once the trial court has determined the appropriate sentencing range, it “is free to select any sentence within the applicable range.” State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 343 (Tenn. 2008) (citing T.C.A. § 40-35-210(d)). When determining a defendant’s sentence and the appropriate combination of sentencing alternatives, trial courts are to consider the following factors:

(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; and
(7) Any statement the defendant wishes to make in the defendant’s own behalf about sentencing.

T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b). The trial court must state on the record the statutory factors it considered and the reasons for the ordered sentence. T.C.A. § 40-35-210(e); Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705-06. “Mere inadequacy in the articulation of the reasons for imposing a particular sentence, however, should not negate the presumption [of reasonableness].” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705-06. A trial court’s sentence “should be upheld 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.

State v. Ponder, No. M2021-00940-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 10, 2022).

On appeal, a defendant bears the burden of establishing that his sentence is improper. T.C.A. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts; State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). Appellate review of sentences is under the abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (2012); see also State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).

To find an abuse of discretion, the record must be void of any substantial evidence that would support the trial court’s decision. Id.; State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). In the context of sentencing, as long as the trial court places the sentence within the appropriate range and properly applies the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act, this Court must presume the sentence to be reasonable. Bise, at 704-07. As the Bise Court stated, “[a] sentence should be upheld 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 708.

State v. Waters, No. E2021-00218-CCA-R3-CD, p. 14 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 28, 2022).

Our standard of review of the trial court’s sentencing determinations is whether the trial court abused its discretion, and we apply a “presumption of reasonableness to within- range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The party challenging the sentence on appeal bears the burden of establishing that the sentence was improper. T.C.A. § 40-35-401 (2017), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.

State v. Bohanan, No. W2021-00242-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9-10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July26, 2022).

When a defendant challenges the length or manner of service of a within-range sentence, this Court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). This presumption applies to “within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 707. A trial court abuses its discretion in sentencing when it “applie[s] an incorrect legal standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the party complaining.” State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn. 1997) (citing Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Tenn. 1996)). This deferential standard does not permit an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tenn. 1998). The defendant bears the burden of proving that the sentence is improper. T.C.A. § 40-35-101, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.

In reaching its decision, the trial court must consider the following factors: (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 enhancement and mitigating factors; (6) any statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee; (7) any statement by the appellant in his own behalf; and (8) the result of the validated risk and needs assessment conducted by the department and contained in the presentence report. See T.C.A § 40-35-102, -103, -210(b); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 697-98. Additionally, the sentence imposed “should be no greater than that deserved for the offense committed” and “should be the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(2), (4). The weighing of various enhancement and mitigating factors is within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 345 (Tenn. 2008). This Court will uphold the sentence “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.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709.

State v. White-McCray, No. E2020-01735-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 18, 2022).

This court reviews the length, range, and manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); see State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014) (applying the Bise standard to “all sentencing decisions”); State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012) (applying the Bise standard to alternative sentencing). In determining a defendant’s sentence, the trial court considers the following factors: (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 enhancement and mitigating factors; (6) any statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee; (7) any statement by the defendant in his own behalf; and (8) the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102, -103, -210; see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 697-98. The burden is on the Defendant to demonstrate the impropriety of his sentence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401, Sent’g Comm’n Cmts.

State v. Rogers, No. W2021-00807-CCA-R3-CD, p. 14-15 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 14, 2022).

On appeal, a defendant bears the burden of establishing that his sentence is improper. T.C.A. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts; State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). Appellate review of sentences is under the abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (2012); see also State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).

To find an abuse of discretion, the record must be void of any substantial evidence that would support the trial court’s decision. Id.; State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). In the context of sentencing, as long as the trial court places the sentence within the appropriate range and properly applies the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act, this Court must presume the sentence to be reasonable. Bise, at 704-07. As the Bise Court stated, “[a] sentence should be upheld 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 708.

State of Tennessee v. Dunn,  No. E2021-00343-CCA-R3-CD, p. 28-29 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 5, 2022).

To facilitate meaningful appellate review, the trial court must state on the record the factors it considered and the reasons for imposing the sentence chosen. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e) (2020); State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 682, 706 (Tenn. 2012). Although the trial court should consider enhancement and mitigating factors, such factors are advisory only. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114 (2020); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698 n. 33, 704; State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008). We note that “a trial court’s weighing of various mitigating and enhancement factors [is] left to the trial court’s sound discretion.” Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 345. In other words, “the trial court is free to select any sentence within the applicable range so long as the length of the sentence is ‘consistent with the purposes and principles of [the Sentencing Act].’” Id. at 343. A trial court’s “misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor does not invalidate the sentence imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from the 1989 Act, as amended in 2005.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706. “[Appellate courts are] bound by a trial court’s decision as to the length of the sentence imposed so long as it is imposed in a manner consistent with the purposes and principles set out in sections -102 and -103 of the Sentencing Act.” Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 346.

When the record clearly establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range after a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 707. The party challenging the sentence on appeal bears the burden of establishing that the sentence was improper. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (2020), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.

State v. Claiborne, No. E2021-00974-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 30, 2022).

When the record establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range that reflects a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this Court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).

State v. Potts, No. M2020-01623-CCA-R3-CD, p. 36-37 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 29, 2022).

When an accused challenges the length of a sentence, this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing determination under an abuse of discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The burden of showing that a sentence is improper is upon the appealing party. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.; see also State v. Arnett, 49 S.W.3d 250, 257 (Tenn. 2001). Before a trial court imposes a sentence upon a convicted criminal defendant, it must consider: (1) the evidence adduced 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 enhancement and mitigating factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-113 and 40- 35-114; (6) any statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to Tennessee sentencing practices for similar offenses; (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. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b).

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.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709- 10. Moreover, under such circumstances, appellate courts may not disturb the sentence even if we had preferred a different result. See State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008). Those purposes and principles include “the imposition of a sentence justly deserved in relation to the seriousness of the offense,” Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35- 102(1), a punishment sufficient “to prevent crime and promote respect for the law,” Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-102(3), and consideration of a defendant’s “potential or lack of potential for . . . rehabilitation,” Tennessee Code Annotated section 40- 35-103(5); Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 344. Ultimately, in sentencing a defendant, a trial court should impose a sentence that is “no greater than that deserved for the offense committed” and is “the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(2), (4).

State v. McKenzie, No. E2021-00445-CCA-R3-CD, p. 12-13 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 23, 2022).

To decide which version of the Act applies to Defendant’s felony drug possession conviction, we must interpret its language. Issues involving statutory construction present questions of law which are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. Kampmeyer v. State, 639 S.W.3d 21, 23 (Tenn. 2022); State v. Keese, 591 S.W.3d 75, 78- 79 (Tenn. 2019); State v. Gibson, 506 S.W.3d 450, 455 (Tenn. 2016); State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918, 924 (Tenn. 2015). We determine legislative intent from the plain language of the statute, “read in context of the entire statute, without any forced or subtle construction which would extend or limit its meaning.” State v. Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d 726, 735 (Tenn. 1998) (quoting State v. Davis, 940 S.W.2d 558, 561 (Tenn. 1997). When a statute is plain and unambiguous, “we must apply its plain meaning in its normal and accepted use, without a forced interpretation that would limit or expand the statute’s application.” Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 751, 762 (Tenn. 2010); see also Keese, 591 S.W.3d at 79. In the event of a conflict, a more specific statutory provision takes precedence over a more general provision. State v. Welch, 595 S.W. 3d 615, 622 (Tenn. 2020); also Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d at 735. “Generally, statutes are presumed to apply prospectively in the absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary.” State v. Thompson, 151 S.W.3d 434, 442 (Tenn. 2004); Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d at 735. “The legislature may limit a new sentencing enactment to prospective application.” Patrick Simpson v. State, No. 01-C-019203-CR00098, 1992 WL 335937, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 18, 1992). Indeed, when construing a more recent statute in conjunction with pre-existing legislation, “we presume that the legislature has knowledge of its prior enactments and is fully aware of any judicial constructions of those enactments.” Davis, 313 S.W.3d at 762; see also Welch, 595 S.W. 3d at 626.

State v. Newson, No. M2021-00444-CCA-R3-CD, p. 29 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 23, 2022).

This court reviews the length, range, and manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013) (applying the Bise standard of review to consecutive sentencing). In determining a defendant’s sentence, the trial court considers the following factors: (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 enhancement and mitigating factors; (6) any statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee; (7) any statement by the Defendant in his own behalf; and (8) the result of the validated risk and needs assessment conducted by the department and contained in the presentence report. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 210(b); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 697-98. The burden is on the Defendant to demonstrate the impropriety of his sentences. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sent’g Comm’n Cmts.

State v. Gass, No. E2021-00692-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 10, 2022).

When the record clearly establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range after a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The party challenging the sentence on appeal bears the burden of establishing that the sentence was improper. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (2021), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.

To facilitate meaningful appellate review, the trial court must state on the record the factors it considered and the reasons for imposing the sentence chosen. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e) (2021); Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706. While the trial court should consider enhancement and mitigating factors, such factors are advisory only. See Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 699 n.33, 704; State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008). A trial court’s “misapplication of an enhancement or mitigation factor does not invalidate the sentence imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from the 1989 Act, as amended in 2005.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706.

State v. Cowles, No. E2021-00603-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 9, 2022).

When the record establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range that reflects a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this Court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The same standard of review applies to a trial court’s decision regarding “probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012); see also State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 325 (Tenn. 2014) (applying the same standard to judicial diversion). 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.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709-10. Moreover, under those circumstances, we may not disturb the sentence even if we had preferred a different result. See State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008). The party appealing the sentence has the burden of demonstrating its impropriety. T.C.A. § 40-35-401, Sent’g Comm’n Cmts.; see also State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991).

State of Tennessee v. Martin, No. M2020-01384-CCA-R3-CD Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 3, 2022).

When an accused challenges the length of a within range sentence, this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing determination under an abuse of discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The burden of showing that a sentence is improper is upon the appealing party. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.; see also State v. Arnett, 49 S.W.3d 250, 257 (Tenn. 2001).

. . .

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.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709- 10. Moreover, under such circumstances, appellate courts may not disturb the sentence even if we had preferred a different result. See State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn.
2008).

State of Tennessee v. Jackson, No. M2020-01098-CCA-R3-CD  (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 3, 2022).

A trial court’s sentencing decisions are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, with a presumption of reasonableness granted to within-range sentences that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of sentencing. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the party complaining. State v. Herron, 461 S.W.3d 890, 904 (Tenn. 2015). The court will uphold the sentence “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.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709-10. This court cannot reverse a sentence based on the trial court’s failure to adjust a sentence in “light of applicable, but merely advisory, mitigating or enhancement factors.” State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008).

State of Tennessee v. Hinson, No. W2021-00257-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7  (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 3, 2022).

When a defendant challenges the length or manner of service of a within-range sentence, this Court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). This presumption applies to “within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 707. A trial court abuses its discretion in sentencing when it “applie[s] an incorrect legal standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the party complaining.” State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn. 1997) (citing Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Tenn. 1996)).

State of Tennessee v. Ford, No. E2021-00780-CCA-R3-CD, p. 11 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 19, 2022).

This Court reviews challenges to the length of a sentence within the appropriate sentence range “under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court must consider any evidence received at the trial and sentencing hearing, the presentence report, the principles of sentencing, counsel’s arguments as to sentencing alternatives, the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct, any mitigating or statutory enhancement factors, statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee, any statement that the defendant made on his own behalf, the result of the validated risk and needs assessment, and the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-210(b), -103.

Likewise, a trial court’s application of enhancement and mitigating factors are reviewed for an abuse of discretion with “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706-07. “[A] trial court’s misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor does not invalidate the sentence imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from the 1989 Act, as amended in 2005.” Id. at 706. “So long as there are other reasons consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing, as provided by statute, a sentence imposed . . . within the appropriate range” will be upheld on appeal. Id.

State of Tennessee v. Palmar, No. M2021-00480-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 13, 2022).

When the record establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range that reflects a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).

State of Tennessee v, Ciaramitaro, No. W2021-00046-CCA-R3-CD, p. 14-15  (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 9, 2022).

“Sentences imposed by the trial court within the appropriate statutory range are to be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)). To find an abuse of discretion, the record must be void of any substantial evidence that would support the trial court’s decision. Id. at 554-55; State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). The reviewing court should uphold the sentence “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.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709-10. So long as the trial court sentences within the appropriate range and properly applies the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act, its decision will be granted a presumption of reasonableness. Id. at 707.

The misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor does not remove the presumption of reasonableness from a trial court’s sentencing decision. Id. A reviewing court should not invalidate a sentence on this basis unless the trial court wholly departed from the principles of the Sentencing Act. Id. So long as there are other reasons consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing, a sentence within the appropriate range should be upheld. Id.

State of Tennessee v Lemons, No. W2020-01613-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 5, 2022).

This court reviews the length, range, and manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); see also State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Tenn. 2013) (applying the standard to consecutive sentencing).

State of Tennessee v. Gonzalez-Martinez, No. E2021-00322-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9 (Ct.  Crim. App. May 2, 2022).

Our supreme court has adopted an abuse of discretion standard of review for sentencing and has prescribed “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The application of the purposes and principles of sentencing involves a consideration of “[t]he potential or lack of potential for the rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant . . . in determining the sentence alternative or length of a term to be imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(5). Trial courts are “required under the 2005 amendments 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 and consistent sentencing.’” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698- 99 (quoting T.C.A. § 40-35-210(e)). Under the holding in Bise, “[a] sentence should be upheld 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.

State of Tennessee v. Benitez, No. M2021-00073-CCA-R3-CD, p. 30 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 27, 2022).

When the record establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range that reflects a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).

State of Tennessee v. Miller, No. M2020-01393-CCA-R3-CD, p. 13 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. 2022).

This court reviews challenges to the length of a sentence within the appropriate sentence range “under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court must consider any evidence received at the trial and sentencing hearing, the presentence report, the principles of sentencing, counsel’s arguments as to sentencing alternatives, the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct, any mitigating or statutory enhancement factors, statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee, any statement that the defendant made on his own behalf, the potential for rehabilitation or treatment, and the result of the validated risk and needs assessment. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-103 (2019), -210 (2019); State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991); State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 236 (Tenn. 1986); State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)); see T.C.A. § 40-35-102 (2019).

State of Tennessee v. Donaldson, No. E2020-01561-CCA-R3-CD, p. 42 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 21, 2022).

Our supreme court has adopted an abuse of discretion standard of review for sentencing and has prescribed “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The application of the purposes and principles of sentencing involves a consideration of “[t]he potential or lack of potential for the rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant . . . in determining the sentence alternative or length of a term to be imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(5). Trial courts are “required under the 2005 amendments 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 and consistent sentencing.’” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698- 99 (quoting T.C.A. § 40-35-210(e)). Under the holding in Bise, “[a] sentence should be upheld 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.

State of Tennessee v. Emery, No. W2021-00086-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 18, 2022).

When an accused challenges the length of a sentence, this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing determinations under an abuse of discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). “This abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to within-range sentences that reflect a decision based upon the purposes and principles of sentencing.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278 (Tenn. 2012). A finding of abuse of discretion indicates the “trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court has not abused its discretion unless “the record [is] void of any substantial evidence that would support the trial court’s decision.” Id.

…

“A trial court’s misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor does not invalidate the sentence imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from” the sentencing statutes. Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706. A sentence within the appropriate range will be upheld “so long as there are other reasons consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing, as provided by statute.” Id.

State of Tennessee v. Himes, No. M2020-00407-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9-10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr, 12, 2022).

On appeal, a jury conviction removes the presumption of the Appellant’s innocence and replaces it with one of guilt, so that the Appellant carries the burden of demonstrating to this court why the evidence will not support the jury’s findings. See State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). The Appellant must establish that no reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).

Accordingly, on appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. See State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). In other words, questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight and value to be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence, are resolved by the trier of fact, and not the appellate courts. See State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990).

The guilt of a defendant, including any fact required to be proven, may be predicated upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both direct and circumstantial evidence. See State v. Pendergrass, 13 S.W.3d 389, 392-93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). Even though convictions may be established by different forms of evidence, the standard of review for the sufficiency of that evidence is the same whether the conviction is based upon direct or circumstantial evidence. See State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011).

State of Tennessee v. McMurry, No. M2021-00223-CCA-R3-CD, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2022).

This Court reviews challenges to the length of a sentence within the appropriate sentence range “under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012).

State of Tenn. v. Montella, No. M2020-00016-CCA-R3-CD, p. 29 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 7, 2022).

This court reviews challenges to the length of a sentence within the appropriate sentence range “under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court must consider any evidence received at the trial and sentencing hearing, the presentence report, the principles of sentencing, counsel’s arguments as to sentencing alternatives, the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct, any mitigating or statutory enhancement factors, statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee, any statement that the defendant made on his own behalf, the result of the validated risk and needs assessment conducted by the department and contained in the presentence report, and the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991) (citing T.C.A. §§ 40-35-103, -210; State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 236 (Tenn. 1986); State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)); see T.C.A. § 40-35-102 (2018).

Likewise, a trial court’s application of enhancement and mitigating factors is reviewed for an abuse of discretion with “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706-07. “[A] trial court’s misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor does not invalidate the sentence imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from the 1989 Act, as amended in 2005.” Id. at 706. “So long as there are other reasons consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing, as provided by statute, a sentence imposed . . . within the appropriate range” will be upheld on appeal. Id.

State v. Blanton, No. M2020-00155-CCA-R3-CD, p. 15-16 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 29, 2022).

This court reviews a trial court’s sentencing determinations under “an abuse of discretion standard of review, granting a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court abuses its discretion only when it applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the party complaining. State v. Herron, 461 S.W.3d 890, 904 (Tenn. 2015). The 2005 amendments to the Sentencing Act “served to increase the discretionary authority of trial courts in sentencing.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 708.

State of Tennessee v. Dagnan,  No. M2020-00152-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Mar. 4, 2022).

In the context of sentencing decisions, this Court  has determined that  it  is  appropriate  for  appellate  courts  to  review  trial  court  determinations  for  abuse  of discretion  with  a  presumption  of  reasonableness.  See  State  v.  Bise, 380 S.W.3d  682,  707 (Tenn. 2012) (adopting “an abuse of discretion standard of review, granting a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act”);  State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278 (Tenn.  2012)  (extending  the  same standard  to  review  of  alternative  sentencing determinations);  State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013) (extending the  same standard  to  review  of  consecutive  sentencing  determinations);  State  v.  King,  432  S.W.3d 316,  324  (Tenn.  2014) (extending  the  same  standard  to  review  of  judicial  diversion decisions).

As  for factual findings,  the  Bise Court noted that “appellate courts cannot properly review a sentence if the trial court fails to articulate in the record its reasons for imposing the  sentence.”  Bise,  380  S.W.3d  at  705 n.41.  It  described  such  findings  as  “critical”  to ensuring fair and consistent sentencing as “the trial court is in a superior position to impose an  appropriate  sentence  and  articulate  the  reasons  for  doing  so.”  Id.;  see  also  Amonette, 2002  WL  1987956  at  *4  (“[T]he  lower  court  is  the  proper  entity  to  make  appropriate  factual findings  regarding  the  believability  and  reliability  of  the  witnesses’  testimony,  and ultimately,  to  rule  upon  the  defendant’s  bid  for  further  probation.”). The  Pollard case further emphasized that, in order for the presumption of reasonableness to apply on appeal, the  trial  court  must  place  its  reasoning  on  the record.  Pollard, 432 S.W.3d  862  (“So  long as  a  trial  court  properly  articulates  reasons  for  ordering  consecutive  sentences,  thereby providing  a  basis  for  meaningful  appellate  review,  the  sentences  will  be  presumed reasonable  and,  absent  an  abuse  of  discretion,  upheld  on  appeal.”). Explaining  the  Bise decision,  the  Pollard Court  noted:  “The  underlying  principle,  of  course,  is  that  the  trial court must be afforded broad discretion in its sentencing decisions and the presumption of reasonableness will apply unless the trial court fails to address on the record the principles and purposes of our Sentencing Act.”  Id. at 861 (citing  Bise,  380 S.W.3d at 709-10).

State v. Elrod, No. E2021-00622-CCA-R3-CD, p. 14  (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 28, 2022).

When a defendant challenges the length or manner of service of a within-range sentence, this Court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). This presumption applies to “within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 707. A trial court abuses its discretion in sentencing when it “applie[s] an incorrect legal standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the party complaining.” State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn. 1997) (citing Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Tenn. 1996)).

In reaching its decision, the trial court must consider the following factors: (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 enhancement and mitigating factors; (6) any statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee; (7) any statement by the appellant in his own behalf; and (8) the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. See T.C.A. § 40-35-102, – 103, -210(b); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 697-98. Additionally, the sentence imposed “should be no greater than that deserved for the offense committed” and also “should be the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(2), (4).

State of Tennessee v. Lillard, No. M2020-01569-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 4, 2022)

When  an  accused  challenges  the  length  and  manner  of  service  of  a  sentence,  this Court  reviews  the  trial  court’s  sentencing  determination  under  an  abuse  of  discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness.   State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707  (Tenn.  2012).   If a trial court misapplies an enhancement or  mitigating  factor  in  passing sentence, said error will not remove the presumption of reasonableness from its sentencing determination.    Bise, 380  S.W.3d  at  709.   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.   Moreover,  under  such  circumstances,  appellate  courts  may  not  disturb  the sentence even if we had preferred a different result.   See State v.  Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn.  2008).   The  party  challenging  the  sentence  imposed  by  the  trial  court  has  the burden  of  establishing  that  the  sentence  is  erroneous.    Tenn.  Code  Ann.  §  40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.;  State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991).

State of Tennessee v. McDaniel, No. E2019-01862-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 24, 2022).

This  court  reviews  the  length,  range,  and  manner  of  service  of  a  sentence  imposed by  the  trial  court  under  an  abuse  of  discretion  standard  with  a  presumption  of reasonableness.    State  v.  Bise,  380  S.W.3d  682,  708  (Tenn.  2012);  see State  v.  King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014) (applying the  Bise standard to “all sentencing decisions”); State  v.  Caudle,  388  S.W.3d  273,  278-79  (Tenn.  2012)  (applying  the  Bise standard  to alternative sentencing).  In determining a defendant’s sentence, the trial court considers the following factors:   (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 enhancement and mitigating factors; (6) any  statistical  information  provided  by  the  Administrative  Office  of  the  Courts  as  to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee; (7) any statement by the defendant in  his  own  behalf;  and  (8)  the  potential  for  rehabilitation  or  treatment.    See Tenn.  Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102,  -103,  -210;  see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 697-98.  The burden is on the Appellant to demonstrate the impropriety of his sentence.   See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35401, Sent’g Comm’n Cmts.

State of Tennessee v. Atwood, No. M2021-00690-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 24, 2022).

It is well settled that this Court reviews within-range sentences imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness.  State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012);  State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012).  Once the trial court has determined the appropriate sentencing range, it “is free to select  any  sentence  within  the  applicable  range.” State  v.  Carter,  254  S.W.3d  335,  343 (Tenn. 2008) (citing Tenn. Code  Ann. § 40-35-210(d)).

When determining a defendant’s sentence and  the  appropriate  combination  of  sentencing  alternatives,  trial  courts  are  to consider the following factors:

(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  in  the  defendant’s  own behalf about sentencing; and

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

Tenn.  Code  Ann.  §  40-35-210(b).  The  trial  court  must  state  on  the  record  the  statutory factors  it  considered  and  the  reasons  for  the  ordered  sentence.   Id. §  40-35-210(e);  Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705-06.  “Mere inadequacy in the articulation of the reasons for imposing a particular  sentence,  however,  should  not  negate  the  presumption  [of  reasonableness].” Bise,  380  S.W.3d  at  705-06.  A  trial  court’s  sentence  “should  be  upheld  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.

State of Tennessee v. Malone, No.  W2020-00364-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 24, 2022).

When an accused challenges the length of a sentence, this court reviews the trial court’s sentencing determination under an abuse of discretion standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness.  State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012).  The burden of showing that a sentence is improper is upon the appealing party.   See Tenn. Code Ann.  §  40-35-401,  Sentencing  Comm’n  Cmts.;    see  also State  v.  Arnett,  49  S.W.3d  250, 257  (Tenn.  2001).   Before  a  trial  court  imposes  a  sentence  upon  a  convicted  criminal defendant,  it  must  consider:   (1)  the  evidence  adduced  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  enhancement  and  mitigating factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-113 and 40-35-114;  (6) any statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to Tennessee sentencing practices for similar offenses;  (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. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b).

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.”  Bise,  380  S.W.3d  at  70910.   Moreover,  under  such  circumstances,  appellate  courts  may  not  disturb  the  sentence even if we had preferred a different result.    See State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008).   Those  purposes  and  principles  include “the  imposition  of  a  sentence  justly  deserved in  relation  to  the  seriousness  of  the  offense,”  Tennessee  Code  Annotated  section  40-35102(1),  a  punishment  sufficient  “to  prevent  crime  and  promote  respect  for  the  law,” Tennessee  Code  Annotated  section  40-35-102(3),  and  consideration  of  a  defendant’s “potential  or  lack  of  potential  for  . . .  rehabilitation,”  Tennessee  Code  Annotated  section 40-35-103(5);    Carter, 254 S.W.3d  at  344.   Ultimately,  in  sentencing  a  defendant,  a  trial court  should  impose  a  sentence  that  is  “no  greater  than  that  deserved  for  the  offense committed”  and  is  “the  least  severe  measure  necessary  to  achieve  the  purposes  for  which the sentence is imposed.”  Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(2) & (4).

State of Tennessee v. Berry, No. M2020-00250-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 10, 2022).

This court reviews the length, range, and manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); see also State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Tenn. 2013) (applying the standard to consecutive sentencing). In determining a defendant’s sentence, the trial court considers the following factors: (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 enhancement and mitigating factors; (6) any statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee; (7) any statement by the defendant in his own behalf; and (8) the result of the validated risk and needs assessment conducted by the department and contained in the presentence report. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 697-98. Moreover, consecutive sentencing is “guided by the general sentencing principles providing that the length of a sentence be ‘justly deserved in relation to the seriousness of the offense’ and ‘no greater than that deserved for the offense committed.’” State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698, 708 (Tenn. 2002) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102(1), -103(2)). The burden is on the Appellant to demonstrate the impropriety of his sentence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sent’g Comm’n Cmts.

State of Tennessee v. Cox, No. E2020-01388-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 3022).

The trial court has broad discretion to impose a sentence anywhere within the applicable range, regardless of the presence or absence of enhancement or mitigating factors, and “sentences should be upheld so long as the statutory purposes and principles, along with any enhancement and mitigating factors, have been properly addressed.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 706 (Tenn. 2012). Accordingly, we review a trial court’s sentencing determinations under an abuse of discretion standard, “granting a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” Id. at 707. In State v. Caudle, our supreme court clarified that the “abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to within-range sentences that reflect a decision based upon the purposes and principles of sentencing, including the questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012).

State of Tennessee v. Cole, No. W2020-01675-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Cr. App. Jan. 28, 2022).

This court reviews challenges to the length of a sentence within the appropriate sentence range “under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court must consider any evidence received at the trial and sentencing hearing, the presentence report, the principles of sentencing, counsel’s arguments as to sentencing alternatives, the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct, any mitigating or statutory enhancement factors, statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee, any statement that the defendant made on his own behalf, the potential for rehabilitation or treatment, and the result of the validated risk and needs assessment. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-103 (2019), -210 (2019); State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991); State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 236 (Tenn. 1986); State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)); see T.C.A. § 40-35- 102 (2019).

Likewise, a trial court’s application of enhancement and mitigating factors are reviewed for an abuse of discretion with “a presumption of reasonableness to withinrange sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706-07. “[A] trial court’s misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor does not invalidate the sentence imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from the 1989 Act, as amended in 2005.” Id. at 706. “So long as there are other reasons consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing, as provided by statute, a sentence imposed . . . within the appropriate range” will be upheld on appeal. Id.

…

If probation is denied solely on the basis of the circumstances of the offense, they “must be especially violent, horrifying, shocking, reprehensible, offensive, or otherwise of an excessive or exaggerated degree,” and the nature of the offense must outweigh all factors favoring a sentence other than probation. State v. Hartley, 818 S.W.2d 370, 374-75 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (citations omitted). This court has recognized, “This standard has essentially been codified in the first part of T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1)(B) which provides for confinement if it ‘is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense.’” Id. at 375.

…

As with felony sentencing, the “abuse of discretion with a ‘presumption of reasonableness’” standard of review applies to questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d at 278-79; see Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 708. Although our supreme court has not considered whether the abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard applies to misdemeanor sentencing determinations, it has stated that the standard “applies to all sentencing decisions,” and this court has previously applied the standard to misdemeanor sentencing. State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014); see State v. Sue Ann Christopher, No. E2012-01090- CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 1088341, at *6-8 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 14, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 18, 2013); see also T.C.A. § 40-35-401(d) (2019) (stating that all sentencing issues raised pursuant to Code section 40-35-401(a) are subject to the same standard of review).

State v. Hart,  No. E2020-01144-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Cr. App. Jan. 28, 2022).

This court reviews challenges to the length of a sentence within the appropriate sentence range “under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court must consider any evidence received at the trial and sentencing hearing, the presentence report, the principles of sentencing, counsel’s arguments as to sentencing alternatives, the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct, any mitigating or statutory enhancement factors, statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee, any statement that the defendant made on his own behalf, and the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991) (citing T.C.A. §§ 40-35-103, -210; State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 236 (Tenn. 1986); State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)); see T.C.A. §§ 40-35-102 (2018), 41-1-126 (2018) (validated risk and needs assessments).

Likewise, a trial court’s application of enhancement and mitigating factors are reviewed for an abuse of discretion with “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706-07. “[A] trial court’s misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor does not invalidate the sentence imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from the 1989 Act, as amended in 2005.” Id. at 706. “So long as there are other reasons consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing, as provided by statute, a sentence imposed . . . within the appropriate range” will be upheld on appeal. Id.

State of Tennessee  v. McClinton, No. M2021-00031-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 20, 2022).

When a criminal defendant challenges his sentence on appeal, it is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness afforded to sentences within the proper range and consistent with the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). To facilitate meaningful appellate review, the trial court must state on the record the factors it considered and the reasons for imposing the sentence chosen. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e) (2020); Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706. However, “[m]ere inadequacy in the articulation of the reasons for imposing a particular sentence . . . should not negate the presumption [of reasonableness].” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705-06. The abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard of review set by our supreme court in Bise also applies to a trial court’s decision to grant or deny probation. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Bise, 380 S.W. 3d at 708). In State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Tenn. 2014), the Tennessee Supreme Court further clarified that “a trial court’s decision to grant or deny probation will not be invalidated unless the trial court wholly departed from the relevant statutory considerations in reaching its determination.” On appeal, the party challenging the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence was improper. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (2020), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.

Prink v. State of Tennessee, No. W2020-01271-CCA-R3-CD  (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022).

Whether a motion states a colorable claim for correction of an illegal sentence under Rule 36.1 is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal. Id. at 589. “[T]he definition of ‘illegal sentence’ in Rule 36.1 is coextensive with, and not broader than, the definition of the term in the habeas corpus context.” Id. at 594-95. [Full cite for refenced case is State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 595 (Tenn. 2015)]