Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113 (2026)
Violation of an order of protection or restraining order - Violation of no contact order
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is an offense to knowingly violate:
- (1) An order of protection issued pursuant to title 36, chapter 3, part 6; or
- (2) A restraining order issued to a victim as defined in § 36-3-601.
- (b) A person violating this section may be arrested with or without a warrant as provided in § 36-3-611, and the arrest shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of § 36-3-619.
- (c) A person who is arrested for a violation of this section shall be considered within the provisions of § 40-11-150(a) and subject to the twelve-hour holding period authorized by § 40-11-150(h).
- (d) After a person has been arrested for a violation of this section, the arresting officer shall inform the victim that the person has been arrested and that the person may be eligible to post bond for the offense and be released until the date of trial for the offense.
- (e) Neither an arrest nor the issuance of a warrant or capias for a violation of this section in any way affects the validity or enforceability of any order of protection, restraining order, or no contact order.
- (f) In order to constitute a violation of subsection (a):
- (1) The person must have received notice of the request for an order of protection or restraining order;
- (2) The person must have had an opportunity to appear and be heard in connection with the order of protection or restraining order; and
- (3) The court made specific findings of fact in the order of protection or restraining order that the person committed domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking as defined in § 36-3-601 or was convicted of a felony offense under chapter 13, part 1, 2, 3, or 5 of this title.
- (g) A violation of subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. Notwithstanding § 40-35-111(e)(1), a violation of subsection (a) is punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), and any sentence of incarceration imposed shall be served consecutively to the sentence for any other offense that is based in whole or in part on the same factual allegations. However, the sentencing judge or magistrate may specifically order the sentences for the offenses arising out of the same facts to be served concurrently.
- (h)
- (1) It is an offense and a violation of an order of protection for a person to knowingly possess a firearm while an order of protection that fully complies with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) is entered against that person and in effect, or any successive order of protection containing the language of § 36-3-606(f) and that fully complies with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) is entered against that person and in effect.
- (2) For purposes of this subsection (h), the determination of whether a person possesses firearms shall be based upon the factors set out in § 36-3-625(f) if the firearms constitute the business inventory or are subject to the National Firearms Act, (26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.).
- (3) A violation of this subsection (h) is a Class A misdemeanor and each violation constitutes a separate offense.
- (4) If a violation of subsection (h) also constitutes a violation of § 36-3-625(h) or § 39-17-1307(f), the respondent may be charged and convicted under any or all such sections.
- (i)
- (1) It is an offense to knowingly violate a no contact order, issued prior to a defendant's release on bond, following the defendant's arrest for any criminal offense defined in this chapter, in which the alleged victim of the offense is a domestic abuse victim as defined in § 36-3-601.
- (2) A violation of subdivision (i)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor. A sentence imposed must be served consecutively to the sentence for the offense for which the defendant was originally arrested, unless the sentencing judge or magistrate specifically orders the sentences for the offenses to be served concurrently.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 60, s 5, eff. 7/1/2021.
Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 422, s 1, eff. 7/1/2019.
Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 393, Secs.s 3, s 4, s 5 eff. 7/1/2019.
Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 393, s 2, eff. 7/1/2019.
Acts 2006, ch. 920, § 1; 2008 , ch. 902, § 1; 2009 , ch. 455, § 5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Eric Wayne Herndon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
State of Tennessee v. Eric Wayne Herndon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113 (a). In order to constitute a violation: (1) The person must have received notice of the request for an order of protection or restraining order; (2) The person must have had an opportunity to appear and be heard in connection with the order of…”
State of Tennessee v. Tyrel J. Sidwell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “- 10 - While the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113 seems fairly straightforward, the resolution of Defendant’s argument requires us to examine the “Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Conditional Release Order” filed by the trial court.”
State of Tennessee v. David Scott Winfrey (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “T.C.A. § 39-13-113(g). Appellant argues that the trial court erred because the statute does not require consecutive sentencing because the statute states that a trial court may order the sentences to run concurrently.”
State of Tennessee v. Keisha Moses Richardson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “In order to constitute a violation: (1) The person must have received notice of the request for an order of protection or restraining order; (2) The person must have had an opportunity to appear and be heard in connection with the order of protection or restraining order; and…”
State of Tennessee v. Karen Ann Matthews (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “M2010-02601-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 26, 2011 Following her Davidson County General Sessions Court conviction of criminal contempt based upon the violation of an order of protection, the defendant, Karen Ann Matthews, was charged via an indictment returned by the Davidson County…”
State of Tennessee v. Alan Dale Bobyarchick (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113 (g). In this direct appeal, he contends that, in the Order of Protection, the circuit court did not make any specific findings of fact that he committed domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, and, therefore, he could not be convicted of…”
State of Tennessee v. Thomas H. Bullington (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “In order to constitute a violation of Code section 39-13-113: (1) The person must have received notice of the request for an order of protection or restraining order; (2) The person must have had an opportunity to appear and be heard in connection with the order of protection or…”
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Lynn Carman-Thacker (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-113 (2014) (violation of an order of protection or restraining order), 39-17-1307 (Supp.”
State of Tennessee v. John Gross (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-113 (2018) (subsequently amended) (violation of an order of protection), 39-17-315 (Supp.”
State of Tennessee v. David Scott Winfrey (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “In the Defendant’s original sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences for ten of the violation of an order of protection offenses and referred to Tennessee -3- Code Annotated section 39-13-113(g) as authority to impose the consecutive sentences.”
David Scott Winfrey v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “The trial court further determined that the petitioner had, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113, disregarded an oral order in which the court ordered the defendant to have no contact with the victim, and that the petitioner had violated the no contact…”
Troy Fuller v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “Appellant testified that the victim failed to appear at the hearing and, therefore, he believed that the order of protection had been dismissed.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113(a)(1) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Thomas H. Bullington (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “In order to constitute a violation of Code section 39-13-113: (1) The person must have received notice of the request for an order of protection or restraining order; (2) The person must have had an opportunity to appear and be heard in connection with the order of protection or…”
State of Tennessee v. John Gross (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-113 (2018) (subsequently amended) (violation of an order of protection), 39-17-315 (Supp.”
State of Tennessee v. Karen Ann Matthews (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “M2010-02601-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 26, 2011 Following her Davidson County General Sessions Court conviction of criminal contempt based upon the violation of an order of protection, the defendant, Karen Ann Matthews, was charged via an indictment returned by the Davidson County…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113(e) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Tyrel J. Sidwell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “- 10 - While the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113 seems fairly straightforward, the resolution of Defendant’s argument requires us to examine the “Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Conditional Release Order” filed by the trial court.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113(f) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Eric Wayne Herndon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113 (a). In order to constitute a violation: (1) The person must have received notice of the request for an order of protection or restraining order; (2) The person must have had an opportunity to appear and be heard in connection with the order of…”
Troy Fuller v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “Appellant testified that the victim failed to appear at the hearing and, therefore, he believed that the order of protection had been dismissed.”
State of Tennessee v. Karen Ann Matthews (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “M2010-02601-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 26, 2011 Following her Davidson County General Sessions Court conviction of criminal contempt based upon the violation of an order of protection, the defendant, Karen Ann Matthews, was charged via an indictment returned by the Davidson County…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113(f)(1) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Noah Keith Tipton - dissenting (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. Thomas H. Bullington (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “In order to constitute a violation of Code section 39-13-113: (1) The person must have received notice of the request for an order of protection or restraining order; (2) The person must have had an opportunity to appear and be heard in connection with the order of protection or…”
State of Tennessee v. Eric Wayne Herndon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113 (a). In order to constitute a violation: (1) The person must have received notice of the request for an order of protection or restraining order; (2) The person must have had an opportunity to appear and be heard in connection with the order of…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113(f)(3) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Eric Wayne Herndon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113 (a). In order to constitute a violation: (1) The person must have received notice of the request for an order of protection or restraining order; (2) The person must have had an opportunity to appear and be heard in connection with the order of…”
State of Tennessee v. Alan Dale Bobyarchick (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113 (g). In this direct appeal, he contends that, in the Order of Protection, the circuit court did not make any specific findings of fact that he committed domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, and, therefore, he could not be convicted of…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113(g) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. David Scott Winfrey (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “T.C.A. § 39-13-113(g). Appellant argues that the trial court erred because the statute does not require consecutive sentencing because the statute states that a trial court may order the sentences to run concurrently.”
State of Tennessee v. David Scott Winfrey (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “In the Defendant’s original sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences for ten of the violation of an order of protection offenses and referred to Tennessee -3- Code Annotated section 39-13-113(g) as authority to impose the consecutive sentences.”
David Scott Winfrey v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “The trial court further determined that the petitioner had, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113, disregarded an oral order in which the court ordered the defendant to have no contact with the victim, and that the petitioner had violated the no contact…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113(h)(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Lynn Carman-Thacker (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-113 (2014) (violation of an order of protection or restraining order), 39-17-1307 (Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113(i)(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Tyrel J. Sidwell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “- 10 - While the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113 seems fairly straightforward, the resolution of Defendant’s argument requires us to examine the “Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Conditional Release Order” filed by the trial court.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113(i)(2) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Tyrel J. Sidwell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “- 10 - While the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113 seems fairly straightforward, the resolution of Defendant’s argument requires us to examine the “Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Conditional Release Order” filed by the trial court.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.