Skip to main content

Graham v. State

Citations

  • 90 S.W.3d 687
  • 2002 Tenn. LEXIS 548

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that so long as the ultimate sentence is within the statutory range, the sentencing judge has “discretion to consider all enhancing and mitigating factors”
  • holding a “notice of appeal” may be treated as an application for interlocutory appeal when it contains sufficient information
  • considering whether enhancement of petitioner's sentence based on factors not found by a jury, but still within the statutory range, violated Apprendi
  • treating a notice of appeal from denial of a motion to reopen as an application for permission to appeal because it contained “sufficient substance” to do so
  • considering an order denying a petitioner’s motion to reopen a post-conviction petition entered on the day it was filed by the court clerk, not the day it was signed by the trial judge
  • “Accordingly, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-217(c) outlines four requirements for an appeal from a motion to reopen to be considered: (1) the timeliness of filing, (2) the place of filing, (3) the application to be filed, and (4) the attachments to the application.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: E. Riley Anderson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

97 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.