Article Title

State of Tennessee v. Kevin E. Trent

Authors

Ben Raybin, Belmont University - College of Law
Juliana Lamar, Belmont University - College of Law

Abstract

Student comments on the Tennessee Supreme Court decision “State of Tennessee v. Kevin E. Trent”. The central holding vacating the sentence in this case did not establish a new doctrine of law but merely reiterated the holding in Travis that the essential elements of the offense alone cannot justify denial of probation in a probation-eligible offense. The Trent decision should be viewed by trial judges and practitioners primarily as a reminder of that principal. On the other hand, the court broke some new ground in appellate review. Prior decisions established that appellate courts can only uphold a sentence if the record is sufficient record to allow “meaningful appellate review.” Trent took that rule a step further by requiring a sufficient record for an appellate court to affirmatively impose a sentence.

Keywords

Criminal Law, Tennessee, Tennessee Supreme Court, Sentencing, Appellate Review

Recommended Citation

Raybin, Ben and Lamar, Juliana (2018) "State of Tennessee v. Kevin E. Trent," Belmont Criminal Law Journal: Vol. 1, Article 14.
Available at: https://repository.belmont.edu/clj/vol1/iss1/14