Case Citator › State v. Ashby

State v. Ashby

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

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of Tennessee
Citation
823 S.W.2d 166
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
146 of 146
Citing cases (total)
3,586
Treatment dates
2012
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. State v. Ashby's de novo appellate-review standard has been superseded by statute; all 146 flagged citations have been read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. State v. Bise held that the 2005 amendments to Tennessee's Sentencing Act displaced de novo review and Ashby's conditional presumption of correctness with abuse-of-discretion review and a presumption of reasonableness for qualifying within-range sentences.
More on how this was screened

The other reviewed opinions applied Ashby positively, reported Bise's statutory-displacement holding, or used nearby adverse language for other authorities, chiefly history parentheticals reporting State v. Hooper's treatment of Bingham, Bonestel, and Dykes.

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.

3,586 later cases cite State v. Ashby; 146 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. Ashby?

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

Superseded by Statute

  • The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the 2005 Sentencing Act amendments displaced Ashby's de novo appellate-review standard and presumption of correctness with abuse-of-discretion review and a presumption of reasonableness.

    State v. Bise · Supreme Court of Tennessee · filed

    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. Ashby 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