State of Tennessee v. Anthony Jared Ross

Syllabus

I dissent from the majority's conclusion that the case must be remanded for resentencing on the basis that the record fails to reflect that the trial court considered a validated risk and needs assessment (\RNA\). The majority concludes from the parties' arguments and from the absence of an RNA in the appellate record that no RNA was prepared and, therefore, that the trial court did not consider one. See T.R.A.P. 13(c) (limiting an appellate court to consideration of those facts which appear in the record or are within the parameters of certain post-judgment facts of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to T.R.A.P. 14) Threadgill v. Board of Prof'l Resp., 299 S.W.3d 792, 812 (Tenn. 2009) (stating that allegations in pleadings or a party's brief are not evidence that is before an appellate court for review), overruled on other grounds by Lockett v. Board of Prof'l Resp., 380 S.W.3d 19, 28 (Tenn. 2012) State v. Draper, 800 S.W.2d 489, 493 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) State v. Roberts, 755 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). As the majority has observed, the Defendant did not object to the trial court's sentencing the Defendant in the purported absence of an RNA at sentencing.