Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee· 7/14/1994

State v. McDonald

Citations

893 S.W.2d 945
1994 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 431

How courts have described this case

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

observing that, in Hargrove , \our Supreme Court retreated from its language in Hodges \
stating that a defendant must “show that post-sentencing information or developments ha[ve] arisen to warrant a reduction of his sentence in the interest of justice”
stating that a defendant must “show that post-sentencing information or developments ha[ve] arisen to warrant a reduction of his sentence in the interest of justice”
commenting that Grady Hargrove “strongly suggests that an alteration of a defendant’s sentence is generally prohibited if it violates the plea agreement entered into under Rule 11[c](1)(C)”
noting that under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, a negotiated sentence may be reevaluated “where unforeseen, post-sentencing developments would permit modification of a sentence in the interest of justice”
affirming the denial of a Rule 35 motion when the defendant “failed to show that post-sentencing information or developments had arisen to warrant a reduction of his sentence in the interest of justice”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Scott, Summers, Tipton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

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.