Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-110 (2026)
Sentence for separate offenses - Parole considerations
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) If a person is sentenced for two (2) or more separate offenses, sentence shall be pronounced for each offense, and imprisonment may equal, but shall not exceed, the total of the maximum terms provided by law for the offenses, which total shall, for the purpose of §§ 40-20-107 - 40-20-110, be construed as one (1) continuous term of imprisonment.
- (b)
- (1) The department of correction shall notify the board of parole when inmates sentenced to consecutive sentences which require custodial parole consideration reach parole eligibility on their initial sentences.
- (2) The board shall determine when the inmate will begin service of the inmate's consecutive sentence.
- (3) No parole certificate shall be required, and the inmate shall be heard for parole when eligible on the inmate's consecutive sentence.
- (4) The board has the authority to begin custodial parole effective on any date on or after the custodial parole eligibility date.
- (5) A bona fide offer of employment shall not be required for custodial parole.
Acts 1913, ch. 8, § 1; Shan., § 7202a3; Code 1932, § 11768; Acts 1982, ch. 739, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 40-2710; Acts 1990, ch. 645, § 1; 1998, ch. 1049, § 19.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Danny A. Stewart v. Derrick D. Schofield, Comm'r, Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 368 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2012).
Danny A. Stewart v. Derrick D. Schofield, Comm'r, Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 368 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2012). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-20-110(b)(1) (2006) (emphasis added).”
Ronald C. Howse v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-110 . Further, Appellant alleges that at the time of sentencing, Tennessee Department of Correction (“Appellee”) policy number 109.”
Niceley v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Tenn. 2025). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-110 (b)(1). [Niceley] had three parole hearings prior to October 2018 and was denied parole at all three hearings.”
Hugh A. Niceley v. Tennessee Dep't Of Corr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-110 (b)(1). Petitioner had three parole hearings prior to October 2018 and was denied parole at all three hearings.”
Niceley v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Tenn. 2023). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-20-110, dealing with custodial parole, does not apply to a prisoner, such as [ ] Niceley, who was sentenced under the Tennessee Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 and who is serving consecutive determinate sentences.”
Clarence Washington v. Dept of Corr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “First, he makes reference to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-110 (b)(1) (2003), which requires the Department to notify the Board when a prisoner becomes eligible for consideration for custodial parole.”
Robert Charles Taylor v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “T.C.A. § 40-20-110(f) (2012). The Petitioner had the burden of establishing that the judge entered the jury room ex parte, that counsel did not object to the ex parte communication, and that a reasonable probability existed that the judge’s purported communication with the…”
State of Tennessee v. Charles Chesteen (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-110 (a) (1997). This provision requires that upon the defendant’s waiver of jury trial, the court establish an amount of restitution for the defendant to pay.”
John A. Bailey v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “” Therefore, according to the Appellant, his six-year and eight-year sentences were not ordered to be served consecutively, but concurrently by operation of the trial court‟s ruling at the December 3, 1996 hearing, in direct contravention of the applicable law, citing to…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-110(a) — 1 case
Ronald C. Howse v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-110 . Further, Appellant alleges that at the time of sentencing, Tennessee Department of Correction (“Appellee”) policy number 109.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-110(b)(1) — 3 cases
Danny A. Stewart v. Derrick D. Schofield, Comm'r, Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 368 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2012). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-20-110(b)(1) (2006) (emphasis added).”
Ronald C. Howse v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-110 . Further, Appellant alleges that at the time of sentencing, Tennessee Department of Correction (“Appellee”) policy number 109.”
Niceley v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Tenn. 2025). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-110 (b)(1). [Niceley] had three parole hearings prior to October 2018 and was denied parole at all three hearings.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-110(f) — 1 case
Robert Charles Taylor v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “T.C.A. § 40-20-110(f) (2012). The Petitioner had the burden of establishing that the judge entered the jury room ex parte, that counsel did not object to the ex parte communication, and that a reasonable probability existed that the judge’s purported communication with the…”
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.