Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526 (2026)
Violations of community supervision - Venue for violations
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly violate a condition of community supervision imposed upon the person pursuant to § 39-13-524.
- (b)
- (1) If the conduct that is a violation of a condition of community supervision does not constitute a criminal offense, the violation is a Class A misdemeanor.
- (2) If the conduct that is a violation of a condition of community supervision also constitutes a criminal offense that is classified as a misdemeanor, the violation is a Class A misdemeanor.
- (3) If the conduct that is a violation of a condition of community supervision also constitutes a criminal offense that is classified as a felony, the violation is a Class E felony.
- (4) Each violation of a condition of community supervision constitutes a separate offense.
- (c) If the violation of community supervision involves the commission of a new offense, the sentence for a violation of this section shall be served consecutive to any sentence received for commission of the new offense.
- (d)
- (1) The venue for a violation of community supervision shall be in the county where the person was being supervised at the time of the violation and this venue shall include those persons placed on supervision in this state but who are being monitored in another state.
- (2) For purposes of prosecuting a violation of community supervision, the probation and parole officer assigned to the person may act as the affiant when seeking an affidavit of complaint against the person.
Acts 1996, ch. 972, § 1; 2009, ch. 115, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Craig Robert Nunn v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 547 S.W.3d 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017).
Craig Robert Nunn v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 547 S.W.3d 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526 (a).21 The Tennessee Supreme Court has acknowledged that when a sex offender is subject to community supervision for life, he or she must “regularly report to a parole officer who is granted wide discretion in imposing supervisory requirements” for…”
State of Tennessee v. Jereme Walker Amis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526 (b)(3). 2 We observe that the State, apparently anticipating that the Defendant would respond to its plain error argument, has analyzed all five plain error factors in its response brief.”
State of Tennessee v. Randall Grainger (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526 (a), (b)(1) Defendant was convicted of violating community supervision in one count by possessing alcohol, in another count for failure to successfully complete sex offender treatment, and in the third count for viewing pornography.”
State of Tennessee v. Mitchell S. Pozezinski (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014). “(b)(1) If the conduct that is a violation of a condition of community supervision does not constitute a criminal offense, the violation is a Class A misdemeanor T.C.A. § 39-13-526. One of the conditions of the Defendant’s community supervision was Rule 9, which stated in…”
John N. Moffitt v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “The Sex Offender Directives and Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-526 do not make any action criminal that was innocently taken by Nunn before the passing of the law.”
Daniel G. Carr v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “Our decision is further bolstered by the fact that a violation of the community supervision for life provision is separate and distinct from violations of other post-release requirements attendant to a defendant’s sentence.”
Jeffrey Haithcote v. Donal Campbell (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-526 , 40-20-111, 40-28-123 and 40-35-504(e).”
State of Tennessee v. Garry Baker (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “§ 39-13-526 (2014). As a result, the trial court ordered the eight-year sentence in the present case to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for the community supervision for life violation conviction.”
Trevon Scott Barcus v. State of Tennessee (2020). “See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-526 , 40-39-204.”
State of West Virginia v. Kenneth E. O'Neal (W. Va. 2024). “1 (providing a maximum term of five years imprisonment for a second or subsequent revocation); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526 (b)(1) (providing a maximum term of imprisonment of less than one year when a violation of community supervision “does not constitute a criminal offense”).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526(a) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jereme Walker Amis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526 (b)(3). 2 We observe that the State, apparently anticipating that the Defendant would respond to its plain error argument, has analyzed all five plain error factors in its response brief.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526(b) — 1 case
Craig Robert Nunn v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 547 S.W.3d 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526 (a).21 The Tennessee Supreme Court has acknowledged that when a sex offender is subject to community supervision for life, he or she must “regularly report to a parole officer who is granted wide discretion in imposing supervisory requirements” for…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526(b)(1) — 2 cases
Craig Robert Nunn v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 547 S.W.3d 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526 (a).21 The Tennessee Supreme Court has acknowledged that when a sex offender is subject to community supervision for life, he or she must “regularly report to a parole officer who is granted wide discretion in imposing supervisory requirements” for…”
State of Tennessee v. Randall Grainger (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526 (a), (b)(1) Defendant was convicted of violating community supervision in one count by possessing alcohol, in another count for failure to successfully complete sex offender treatment, and in the third count for viewing pornography.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526(c) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jereme Walker Amis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-526 (b)(3). 2 We observe that the State, apparently anticipating that the Defendant would respond to its plain error argument, has analyzed all five plain error factors in its response brief.”
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.