Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-115 (2026)
Eligibility for parole
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Every person sentenced to an indeterminate sentence and confined in a state prison, after having served a period of time equal to the minimum sentence imposed by the court for the crime of which the person was convicted, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the board. The time of release shall be discretionary with the board, but no such person shall be released before serving the minimum sentence nor before serving one (1) year.
- (b)
- (1) Every person sentenced to a determinate sentence and confined in a state prison, after having served a period of time equal to one half (½) of the sentence imposed by the court for the crime for which the person was convicted, but in no event less than one (1) year, shall likewise be subject to parole in the same manner provided for those sentenced to an indeterminate sentence.
- (2) The parole eligibility for each person who commits a crime on or after July 1, 1982, shall be determined by the criteria listed in the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1982 [repealed].
- (c) The action of the board in releasing prisoners shall be deemed a judicial function and shall not be reviewable if done according to law.
- (d) If a prisoner has been accorded a bona fide offer of employment, the board may release the prisoner on probationary parole under either of the following conditions:
- (1) At any time not more than six (6) months before the prisoner's date of eligibility for parole as provided in this chapter if, after all credit for good conduct, that eligibility shall occur more than eighteen (18) months and less than five (5) years from the date of sentence; or
- (2) At any time not more than one (1) year before the prisoner's date of eligibility for parole as provided in this chapter if, after all credit for good conduct, that eligibility shall occur more than five (5) years from the date of sentence.
- (e) The prisoner shall at all times during probationary parole be under the jurisdiction of the board and the supervision of the department. The board may revoke the probationary parole for any reason satisfactory to it.
- (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter relating to parole eligibility, and when acting pursuant to the Tennessee Contract Sentencing Act of 1979, compiled in chapter 34 of this title, the board of parole is authorized to release a prisoner on parole on the date specified in a sentencing agreement entered into by the prisoner, the board and the department of correction. In granting parole, the board may impose any conditions and limitations that the board deems necessary.
- (g)
- (1) The general assembly declares it to be public policy that no person shall be granted parole, notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, until the person has successfully completed a test requiring that individual to master certain basic and other skills. The test shall include as a minimum requirement scoring at an eighth-grade reading level. This requirement shall not apply to any person certified by the commissioner of correction or the commissioner's designee as being so intellectually disabled or mentally ill as to be incapable of learning at the required levels. Furthermore, this subsection (g) shall not apply to the following:
- (A) Persons who are incarcerated in county jails or workhouses;
- (B) Persons who are in the custody of the department of correction for less than one (1) year; or
- (C) Persons who have high school diplomas or the equivalent.
- (2) The commissioner or the commissioner's designee, the board of parole and the state board of education shall jointly formulate policies and procedures to implement this subsection (g).
- (3) This subsection (g) shall be inapplicable to any inmate or group of inmates if the commissioner determines that its effectuation will increase the system's inmate population and if the commissioner so certifies the determination to the governor.
- (1) The general assembly declares it to be public policy that no person shall be granted parole, notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, until the person has successfully completed a test requiring that individual to master certain basic and other skills. The test shall include as a minimum requirement scoring at an eighth-grade reading level. This requirement shall not apply to any person certified by the commissioner of correction or the commissioner's designee as being so intellectually disabled or mentally ill as to be incapable of learning at the required levels. Furthermore, this subsection (g) shall not apply to the following:
- (h)
- (1) The department of correction shall not certify an inmate for a parole grant hearing, other than an initial grant hearing, if, at the time the department of correction would otherwise have certified the inmate as eligible, the inmate is classified as close custody. This decertification shall continue for the duration of the classification, and for a period of one (1) year thereafter.
- (2) The department of correction shall not certify an inmate for a parole grant hearing, other than an initial grant hearing, if, at the time the department of correction would otherwise have certified the inmate as eligible, the inmate is classified as maximum custody. This decertification shall continue for the duration of the classification, and for a period of two (2) years thereafter.
- (i) When declining, revoking, or rescinding parole, the board is authorized to set the period of time before the prisoner receives another hearing on the same offense or offenses. However, the period set by the board shall not exceed six (6) years, unless the prisoner is serving a sentence for multiple convictions for first degree murder, pursuant to § 39-13-202, or facilitation of first degree murder, in which case the period set by the board shall not exceed ten (10) years.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 410, s 9, eff. 7/1/2021.
Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 870, s 1, eff. 4/27/2016.
Acts 1937, ch. 276, § 8; mod. C. Supp. 1950, § 11818.8 (Williams, § 11843.8); Acts 1957, ch. 162, § 1; 1974, ch. 624, § 3; 1979, ch. 359, § 17; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 359, §§ 5, 26; Acts 1979, ch. 386, § 2; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 40-3612; Acts 1985, ch. 254, § 1; 1985 (1st Ex. Sess.), ch. 5, § 25; 1989, ch. 227, § 29; 1990, ch. 1011, § 1; 1998, ch. 743, §§ 1, 2; 1998, ch. 1049, §§ 24, 66; 1999, ch. 516, § 4; 2011 , ch. 158, § 20; 2012 , ch. 727, § 23.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · 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). “We turn next to consider whether the trial court properly dismissed Petitioner’s action against the Board and Board officials.”
Kaylor v. Bradley, 912 S.W.2d 728 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “Accordingly, his release eligibility date was initially controlled by Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-28-115(b) (1990). This statute continues to govern Mr.”
Brigham v. Lack, 755 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-28-115(c) provides, “The action of the [parole] board in releasing prisoners shall be deemed a judicial function and shall not be reviewable if done according to law.”
South v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles, 946 S.W.2d 310 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “The powers and duties of the Board of Paroles are to be found in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-28-101 et seq. That chapter contains the following language: “The action of the board in releasing prisoners shall be deemed a judicial function, and shall not be renewable if done according to…”
Flowers v. Traughber, 910 S.W.2d 468 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Therefore, even if treated as a petition for writ of certio-rari, this petition would have been properly dismissed. Additionally, even if the petition had been addressed on the merits, the action of the Parole Board in releasing prisoners is not reviewable if done according to…”
Shorts v. Bartholomew, 278 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. 2009). “§ 40-28-115(b). In this case, Plaintiff was effectively sentenced as a Range I standard (30%) offender to eight years imprisonment.”
Hopkins v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles & Prob., 60 S.W.3d 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “§ 40-28-115(c) (1997); Arnold v. Tennessee Bd.”
Robinson v. Traughber, 13 S.W.3d 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “Seriousness of the Offense In considering parole for prisoners, the Parole Board is considered to be exercising a judicial function which is not reviewable if done in accordance with the law.”
Carroll v. Raney, 953 S.W.2d 657 (Tenn. 1997). “§ 40-3612 (1975)[Now Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-115 (1990)]. Sentencing by jury, and the determinate/indeterminate distinction, has been largely abolished in the present sentencing act.”
Hinds v. State of Tenn., 888 F. Supp. 854 (W.D. Tenn. 1995). “" Section 40-28-117(a) states, in pertinent part: Parole being a privilege and not a right, no prisoner shall be released on parole merely as a reward for good conduct or efficient performance of duties assigned in prison, but only if the board is of the opinion that there is…”
Cortez Bennett v. Kevin Genovese, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “Code section 40-28-115 is not a sentencing statute and is instead a statute addressed to the parole board and includes the general requirements for parole eligibility.”
Hinds v. Tennessee, 888 F. Supp. 854 (W.D. Tenn. 1995). “” Section 40-28-117(a) states, in pertinent part: Parole being a privilege and not a right, no prisoner shall be released on parole merely as a reward for good conduct or efficient performance of duties assigned in prison, but only if the board is of the opinion that there is…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-115(a) — 3 cases
Hinds v. State of Tenn., 888 F. Supp. 854 (W.D. Tenn. 1995). “" Section 40-28-117(a) states, in pertinent part: Parole being a privilege and not a right, no prisoner shall be released on parole merely as a reward for good conduct or efficient performance of duties assigned in prison, but only if the board is of the opinion that there is…”
Hinds v. Tennessee, 888 F. Supp. 854 (W.D. Tenn. 1995). “” Section 40-28-117(a) states, in pertinent part: Parole being a privilege and not a right, no prisoner shall be released on parole merely as a reward for good conduct or efficient performance of duties assigned in prison, but only if the board is of the opinion that there is…”
Jabari Issa Mandela a/k/a John H. Wooden v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-115(b) — 4 cases
Kaylor v. Bradley, 912 S.W.2d 728 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “Accordingly, his release eligibility date was initially controlled by Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-28-115(b) (1990). This statute continues to govern Mr.”
Shorts v. Bartholomew, 278 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. 2009). “§ 40-28-115(b). In this case, Plaintiff was effectively sentenced as a Range I standard (30%) offender to eight years imprisonment.”
Mohamed Ali v. Bd. of Paroles (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Blankinship v. TDOC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-115(b)(1) — 2 cases
Cortez Bennett v. Kevin Genovese, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “Code section 40-28-115 is not a sentencing statute and is instead a statute addressed to the parole board and includes the general requirements for parole eligibility.”
Lamario Hill v. Kevin Genovese, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-115(c) — 8 cases
Danny A. Stewart v. Derrick D. Schofield, Comm'r, Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 368 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2012). “We turn next to consider whether the trial court properly dismissed Petitioner’s action against the Board and Board officials.”
Brigham v. Lack, 755 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-28-115(c) provides, “The action of the [parole] board in releasing prisoners shall be deemed a judicial function and shall not be reviewable if done according to law.”
South v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles, 946 S.W.2d 310 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “The powers and duties of the Board of Paroles are to be found in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-28-101 et seq. That chapter contains the following language: “The action of the board in releasing prisoners shall be deemed a judicial function, and shall not be renewable if done according to…”
Flowers v. Traughber, 910 S.W.2d 468 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Therefore, even if treated as a petition for writ of certio-rari, this petition would have been properly dismissed. Additionally, even if the petition had been addressed on the merits, the action of the Parole Board in releasing prisoners is not reviewable if done according to…”
Hopkins v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles & Prob., 60 S.W.3d 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “§ 40-28-115(c) (1997); Arnold v. Tennessee Bd.”
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.