Tennessee Supreme Court· 4/23/2014

State v. King

Citations

432 S.W.3d 316
2014 WL 1622210
2014 Tenn. LEXIS 351

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the factor concerning the defendant’s mental and physical health was neutral where the record reflected “nothing remarkable” regarding the defendant’s health
holding that the factor concerning the defendant’s mental and physical health was neutral where the record reflected “nothing remarkable” regarding the defendant’s health
holding that decisions regarding diversion are reviewed under standard of review applicable to sentencing
recognizing that “the conditional probationary period incident to the grant of judicial diversion does not qualify as a sentence per se” but is instead a decision to either defer or impose a judgment
asserting that “Bise, Caudle, and Pollard did not abrogate the requirements set forth in Parker and Electroplating, which are essential considerations for judicial diversion”
asserting that “Bise, Caudle, and Pollard did not abrogate the requirements set forth in Parker and Electroplating, which are essential considerations for judicial diversion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clark, Holder, Koch, Lee, Wade

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

19 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.