Sentencing Considerations
In the preceding article, I discussed the policy purposes underlying sentencing in Tennessee. This article provides more specific information on the considerations a court must apply when imposing penalties on a defendant—whether the penalty is incarceration, probation, community service or some other alternative sentencing arrangement.
When incarceration is considered by the judge as an option, the judge must consider whether confinement is necessary either:
- to protect society by restraining the defendant who has a long criminal history,
- to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense,
- or to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses.
The judge must also determine whether measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant.
The judge is required to apply uniformity in sentencing. Accordingly, the judge must ensure that the sentence is no greater than that deserved for the offense committed and that the sentence imposed is the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which a sentence has been imposed. Inequalities in sentences unrelated to the purposes of sentencing should be avoided.
The judge must also consider rehabilitation and treatment in determining available treatment options. Specifically, the judge is advised to consider the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation when imposing a sentence. In fact, the code provides that a term of probation can be as long as a treatment or rehabilitation program in which participation is a condition of the sentence. Moreover, judges are encouraged to use alternatives to incarceration, including reparation, victim compensation, and/or community service.
An effective criminal defense attorney in East Tennessee will make sure that the judge will appropriately apply the policies and considerations enshrined in the law to any sentence imposed. For example, in a 2004 case before the Tennessee Criminal Court of Appeals, the Court found that the trial court erred in denying probation to the defendant upon facts showing that defendant had suffered from depression but was taking medication, and dropped out of high school but currently had returned to school. To the Court, this indicated that probation was more appropriate given the defendant’s rehabilitative needs.
If you have been charged with a crime and need a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney who has experience zealously representing defendants in East Tennessee criminal courts—including the courts of Knox, Sevier and Blount counties—dial 866-853-2888 to speak with a Baker Associates criminal defense attorney.
Source: TCA 40-35-103; State v. Trent, 2004 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 936 (2004)
Bookmark: 
