Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee· 5/31/2001

State v. Taylor

Citations

63 S.W.3d 400
2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 405
2001 WL 584287

How courts have described this case

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

holding that “enhanced punishment” in the State’s notice “logically means punishment as a multiple, persistent, or career offender”
holding that a notice of sentence enhancement is not required to specify which range—career, persistent, or multiple—applies to the defendant
holding that “Notice of Enhancement” document, which listed the defendant’s seven prior convictions, but did not specify which range applied, nonetheless, substantially complied with notice requirements
concluding that a notice was adequate when the defendant “failed to show any prejudice arising from a lack of knowledge as to which particular range the State was contemplating to seek for purposes of sentencing”
rejecting defendant’s claim that he voluntarily released victim; evidence showed release was due only to successful escape
finding notice which stated that the State intended to seek an enhanced punishment but failed to specify a particular sentencing range substantially complied with subsection (a)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Judge Thomas T. Woodall

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

18 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.