Opinion ID: 1060999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sentencing act of 1989

Text: In imposing a sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Act of 1989, the trial court first must determine the applicable range of punishment based on the severity of the offense and the defendant's prior criminal convictions. These statutory classifications, as well as the applicable ranges of punishment, are established by the Legislature. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-106 to -109 (1990 & Supp. 1996). After determining the applicable range of punishment, the court must presume that the minimum sentence in the applicable range is the presumptive sentence to be imposed. If there are enhancement factors but no mitigating factors in the record, the court may set the sentence above the minimum in that range but still within the range. If enhancement and mitigating factors are in the record, the trial court must start at the minimum sentence in the range, enhance the sentence within the range as appropriate for the enhancement factors, and then reduce the sentence within the range as appropriate for the mitigating factors. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c), (d), & (f)(1990); State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 601 (Tenn. 1994); State v. Adams, 864 S.W.2d 31, 33 (Tenn. 1993). Only those enhancement factors authorized by the Legislature in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114 may be used to enhance a sentence. The factors must be appropriate for the offense and not themselves essential elements of the offense. The purpose of these limitations is to exclude enhancement factors which are not relevant to the offense and those based on facts which are used to prove the offense. Facts which establish the elements of the offense charged may not also be the basis of an enhancement factor increasing punishment. The legislature, in determining the ranges of punishment within the classifications of offenses, necessarily took into account the culpability inherent in each offense. State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d at 601. Determining whether an enhancement factor should be applied is a task that must be undertaken on a case by case basis. To facilitate appellate review, the trial court must place on the record its reasons for arriving at the final sentencing decision, identify the mitigating and enhancement factors found, state the specific facts supporting each enhancement factor found, and articulate how the mitigating and enhancement factors have been evaluated and balanced in determining the sentence. Id. See also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(f)(1990). As an appellate court reviewing the length, range, or manner of service of a sentence, we must conduct a de novo review of the record with a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court were correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (1990). If, as in this case, the trial court fails to comply with these statutory provisions, there is no presumption of correctness and our review is de novo. State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d at 600.