Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-15-101 (2026)
Default of defendant
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) When a capias has been returned not to be found, and in felony cases when, before or after conviction, the defendant breaks jail or forfeits the bond for appearance, the court may strike the cause from the docket, and give judgment against the state for the costs as the state is bound to pay in case of nolle prosequi or acquittal of the defendant.
- (b) The cause shall not be discontinued by such judgment. If the defendant is afterwards taken or comes into the state, a capias or other process shall run against the defendant and the case be proceeded with as if it had not been stricken from the docket.
Code 1858, §§ 5193, 5194; Shan., §§ 7157, 7158; Code 1932, §§ 11719, 11720; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 40-2103, 40-2104.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1986–2011 · leading case: State v. Pinkham, 955 S.W.2d 956 (Tenn. 1997).
State v. Pinkham, 955 S.W.2d 956 (Tenn. 1997). “4 As permitted by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-15-101 et seq. (1991), Pink-ham applied to the district attorney general for pretrial diversion.”
State v. Carr, 861 S.W.2d 850 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “Section 40-15-101 et seq., and I have considered the pre-sentence report, the letters of support which you submitted, as well as the facts the State would expect to prove at trial.”
State v. Johnson, 980 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “The pretrial diversion statute is located in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-15-101, seq. The judicial diversion statute, however, is located in Tenn.”
State v. Wilson, 713 S.W.2d 85 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). “1978), one of the most important aspects of the pre-trial diversion act, T.C.A. § 40-15-101, et seq., was stated as follows: The self-evident purpose of pre-trial diversion is to spare appropriately selected first offenders the stigma, embarrassment and expense of trial and the…”
Deurloo v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 42-8-81 (providing that the court may, upon application of the defendant, release him to the supervision of a pretrial diversion program); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-15-101 (providing that a defendant can petition the court for review of the prosecutor's decision not to accept him…”
State v. Keenan, 737 S.W.2d 309 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 40-15-101 et seq. In order to evaluate the appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for diversion, we will look into the background of the events that led up to that dismissal.”
State of Tennessee v. Cody Matthew Headrick - Dissenting/Concurring (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “The Defendant filed an application for pre-trial diversion pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-15-101, et. seq. The Defendant’s first application for pre-trial diversion did not contain the Defendant’s employment history, a recitation of the facts, a list of…”
State v. Antonio Johnson (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “The pretrial diversion statute is located in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-15-101 , seq. Th e judicia l diversio n statute , howe ver, is loc ated in T enn.”
State v. Lane (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “1996), and pretrial diversion, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-15-101 to -105 (Supp.”
State of Tennessee v. Jesse Grant Craven, Tommy Davenport & Greg Pope (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “wherein the Attorney General’s office is asked to express an opinion on whether the Board of Probation and Parole is authorized to supervise an individual placed on pre-trial diversion pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-15-101, et seq. It is the opinion of the Attorney…”
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.