Case Citator › State v. Carter

State v. Carter

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Tennessee
Citation
254 S.W.3d 335
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
46 of 46
Citing cases (total)
46
Treatment dates
2012
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. State v. Carter remains good law on Tennessee's advisory sentencing factors and probation eligibility, but State v. Bise displaced its de novo appellate sentencing review formulation. The partial overruling is listed below.
More on how this was screened

All 46 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

46 later cases cite State v. Carter; 46 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State v. Carter?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • State v. Bise adopted abuse of discretion review in place of the de novo appellate sentencing standard that Carter had described.

    State v. Bise · Supreme Court of Tennessee · filed

    In our view, Carter marked the beginning of this Court’s recognition that sentences should be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. In Banks and Cross, we also afforded greater deference to the sentences imposed by the trial court. Thus, although the statutory language continues to describe appellate review as de novo with a presumption of correctness, our recent decisions have more closely resembled an abuse of discretion standard. We hold, therefore, that because the General Assembly, in an effort to bring the 1989 Act into compliance with Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker, made advisory the minimum sentence that should be imposed and the enhancement and mitigating factors that might be considered, the 2005 amendments also effectively abrogated the de novo standard of appellate review. So as to comport with the holdings in Booker, Rita, and Gall, today we adopt 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.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Carter and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace