" Id. (emphasis added) (citing T.C.A. §§ 40-35-209(a); -210(a)-(e)). "The court must state its reasons for imposing a new sentence on the record." State v. John Eric Lipscomb, No. 01C01-9506-CR-00185 (Tenn.Crim.App. filed Feb. 13, 1996, at Nashville); see T.C.A. §§ 40-35-209(c); 40-35-210(f)-(g). This Court cannot provide effective review unless the trial court indicates on the record its reasoning for the sentence imposed.
Crim. App., Nashville, February 18, 1993). Batts has been followed in the following cases: State v. John Eric Lipscomb, Davidson County No. 01-C-01-9506-CR-00185, 1996 WL 63947 (Tenn.Crim.App, Nashville, February 13, 1996); State v. Thomas Harold Adams, Marshall County No. 01-C-01-9311-CR-00395, 1994 WL 379124 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, July 21, 1994); State v. Willie Huel Tears, Marshall County No. 01-C-01-9310-CC-00376, 1994 WL 279813 (Tenn.
However, due to the inadequacy of the record, this Court is unable to conduct its statutorily-mandated de novo review of the new sentence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d); see also State v. Lipscomb, No. 01-C-01-9506-CR-00185, 1996 WL 63947, at *3 (Tenn.Crim.App. Feb. 13, 1996); Batts, 1996 WL 63947, at *4. Accordingly, this case is reversed and remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing in accordance with the provision of the sentencing act. Any party dissatisfied with the sentence imposed by the trial court may appeal as of right.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(4) (1995 Supp.). The purpose of this statute "is to permit a trial court to impose a new sentence if the nature, circumstances, and frequency of the accused's violations warrant a different type of alternative sentence or incarceration." State v. John Eric Lipscomb, No. 01-C-01-9506-CR-00185 (Tenn.Crim.App., Nashville, Feb. 13, 1996). However, "the provisions of the statute do not permit a trial court to arbitrarily establish the length of the new sentences."