Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-705 (2026)
Evaluation and identification
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) On and after January 1, 1996, each sex offender who is to be considered for probation or any other alternative sentencing shall be required to submit to an evaluation for treatment, risk potential, procedures required for monitoring of behavior to protect victims and potential victims, and an identification under the procedures developed pursuant to § 39-13-704(d)(1).
- (b) Those offenders found guilty at trial or who pled guilty without an agreement as to length of sentence, probation, or alternative sentencing that are to have a presentence report prepared for submission to the court shall be required to submit to the evaluation referred to in subsection (a). The evaluation shall be included as part of the presentence report and shall be considered by the court in determining the sentencing issues stated in this section. If the court grants probation or alternative sentencing, any plan of treatment recommended by the evaluation shall be a condition of the probation or alternative sentencing. Those offenders who, as part of a negotiated settlement of their case, are to be placed on probation or alternative sentencing shall be required to submit to the evaluation referred to in subsection (a) as a condition of their probation or alternative sentencing; and any plan of treatment recommended by the evaluation shall be a condition of probation or alternative sentencing.
- (c) The evaluation and identification required by subsection (a) shall be at the expense of the offender evaluated, based upon the offender's ability to pay. The plan of treatment and behavior management shall be at the expense of the offender based upon the offender's ability to pay.
- (d) Any evaluation required by this section must be performed by an individual or entity on the sex offender treatment board's list of approved providers compiled pursuant to § 39-13-704(d)(5).
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 204, s 2, eff. 4/22/2021.
Acts 1995, ch. 353, § 6; 1996, ch. 968, § 5; 1998, ch. 971, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: State v. Mounger, 7 S.W.3d 70 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
State v. Mounger, 7 S.W.3d 70 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-705 (Supp.1998). This court has previously held that summary refusal to review evidence presented to rebut information contained in the presentence report is error.”
State v. Reams, 265 S.W.3d 423 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “§ 39-13-705(a). “If the court grants probation or alternative sentencing, any plan of treatment recommended by such evaluation shall be a condition of the probation or alternative sentencing.”
State of Tennessee v. Westley A. Albright, 564 S.W.3d 809 (Tenn. 2018). “s that [e]ach sex offender sentenced by the court for an offense committed on or after January 1, 1996, is required, as a part of any sentence to probation, community corrections, or incarceration with the department of correction, to undergo treatment to the extent appropriate…”
State v. Pierce, 138 S.W.3d 820 (Tenn. 2004). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-705 (2003). The evaluation report “shall be included as part of the pre-sentence report and shall be considered by the court in determining the sentencing issues stated in this section.”
State of Tennessee v. Mustapha Boutchiche (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “Before sentencing, the defendant was required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-705 to undergo a psychosexual evaluation.”
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Moore (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “The defendant initially contends that the trial court should not have imposed a sentence without the completion of a psychosexual evaluation via Code section 39-13-705. He also argues that the trial court’s imposition of sentences is excessive in both length and alignment.”
State of Tennessee v. Paul Avery Reno (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “The trial court improperly considered some factors, neglected to consider others, and no psychosexual evaluation was conducted in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-705 (2014) (requiring a psychosexual evaluation when a sex -19- offender requests alternative…”
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Lee Noe (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006). “See T.C.A. § 39-13-705(b) (Supp. 2004). The definition of “sexual offense” includes the offense of statutory rape.”
State of Tennessee v. William A. Marshall (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “§ 39-13-705 (Supp. 2001). We recognize that the record in the present case does not reflect whether the defendant’s evaluation indicated a need for the treatment program, thereby making the program a required condition of probation.”
State of Tennessee v. Anthony J. Ramey (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “At any rate, nothing in Code section 39-13-705 purports to limit the sentencing court’s authority, pursuant to the so-called “catch all” factor, to consider in mitigation “[a]ny other factor 4 (.”
State of Tennessee v. Richard Albany Goode (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-705 (Supp. 2002).”
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Fritz Edwards (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “Prior to sentencing and pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-705, the Defendant reported to CCS for a psychosexual evaluation.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-705(a) — 13 cases
State v. Reams, 265 S.W.3d 423 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “§ 39-13-705(a). “If the court grants probation or alternative sentencing, any plan of treatment recommended by such evaluation shall be a condition of the probation or alternative sentencing.”
State of Tennessee v. Westley A. Albright, 564 S.W.3d 809 (Tenn. 2018). “s that [e]ach sex offender sentenced by the court for an offense committed on or after January 1, 1996, is required, as a part of any sentence to probation, community corrections, or incarceration with the department of correction, to undergo treatment to the extent appropriate…”
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Moore (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “The defendant initially contends that the trial court should not have imposed a sentence without the completion of a psychosexual evaluation via Code section 39-13-705. He also argues that the trial court’s imposition of sentences is excessive in both length and alignment.”
State of Tennessee v. Freddie McCullough (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
State of Tennessee v. Paul Avery Reno (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “The trial court improperly considered some factors, neglected to consider others, and no psychosexual evaluation was conducted in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-705 (2014) (requiring a psychosexual evaluation when a sex -19- offender requests alternative…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-705(b) — 14 cases
State v. Mounger, 7 S.W.3d 70 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-705 (Supp.1998). This court has previously held that summary refusal to review evidence presented to rebut information contained in the presentence report is error.”
State v. Reams, 265 S.W.3d 423 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “§ 39-13-705(a). “If the court grants probation or alternative sentencing, any plan of treatment recommended by such evaluation shall be a condition of the probation or alternative sentencing.”
State of Tennessee v. Westley A. Albright, 564 S.W.3d 809 (Tenn. 2018). “s that [e]ach sex offender sentenced by the court for an offense committed on or after January 1, 1996, is required, as a part of any sentence to probation, community corrections, or incarceration with the department of correction, to undergo treatment to the extent appropriate…”
State v. Pierce, 138 S.W.3d 820 (Tenn. 2004). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-705 (2003). The evaluation report “shall be included as part of the pre-sentence report and shall be considered by the court in determining the sentencing issues stated in this section.”
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Lee Noe (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006). “See T.C.A. § 39-13-705(b) (Supp. 2004). The definition of “sexual offense” includes the offense of statutory rape.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-705(c) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Moore (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “The defendant initially contends that the trial court should not have imposed a sentence without the completion of a psychosexual evaluation via Code section 39-13-705. He also argues that the trial court’s imposition of sentences is excessive in both length and alignment.”
State of Tennessee v. Darrell Dean Hochhalter (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
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.