Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207 (2026)

Presentence report - Contents - Validated risk and needs assessment defined

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 906, Secs.s 7, s 8 eff. 1/1/2017.

Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6; 2010 , ch. 861, § 4.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: State v. Alvarado, 961 S.W.2d 136 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State v. Alvarado, 961 S.W.2d 136 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-301 ; State v. Mahoney, 874 S.”
State v. Butler, 108 S.W.3d 845 (Tenn. 2003). · cites it 4× “Though the defendant's ability to pay the fine is a factor in the establishment of the fine, see Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-207(a)(7) (1997), it is not a controlling factor.”
State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “See T.C.A. § 40-35-207. The evidence submitted at the hearing was basically uncontroverted.”
Thomas v. Haslam, 303 F. Supp. 3d 585 (M.D. Tenn. 2018). · cites it 2× “imposes a fine upon an individual, the court may direct as follows: (1) That the defendant pay the entire amount at the time sentence is pronounced; (2) That the defendant pay the entire amount at some later date; (3) That the defendant pay the fine in specified portions or…”
Lodowski v. State, 490 A.2d 1228 (Md. 1986). · cites it 2× “1985); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207 (8) (1982); Vt.”
Thomas v. Haslam, 329 F. Supp. 3d 475 (M.D. Tenn. 2018). · cites it 2× “imposes a fine upon an individual, the court may direct as follows: (1) That the defendant pay the entire amount at the time sentence is pronounced; (2) That the defendant pay the entire amount at some later date; (3) That the defendant pay the fine in specified portions or…”
State v. Flynn, 675 S.W.2d 494 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “As to the latter point, the state maintains that it is relevant to the defendant’s “social situation and background,” a factor included in the sentencing criteria of T.C.A. § 40-35-207(a)(2). In contrast, the defendant characterizes the unidentified policeman’s statement about…”
State v. Morris, 750 S.W.2d 746 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “These matters are all required by § 40-35-207, Tenn.Code Ann., to be included in the pre-sentence report for the trial judge’s consideration, and the judge may admit evidence he deems reliable, even though it may be hearsay.”
State v. Pugh, 713 S.W.2d 682 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “TCA § 40-35-207(a)(3) and (5). The presentence report shall be filed with the court clerk and complete copies will be made available to the parties for at least five days prior to the hearing.”
State of Tennessee v. Christopher C. Solomon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “As part of the Public Safety Act of 2016, section 40-35-207 was amended to require the results of a “validated risk and needs assessment” be included in the presentence report.”
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Ailey (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207 (a)(10). A “validated risk and needs assessment” is “a determination of a person’s risk to reoffend and the needs that, when addressed, reduce the risk to reoffend through the use of an actuarial assessment tool designed by the department that…”
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Jared Ross (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). · cites it 6× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207 (d); see also State v.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207(8) — 1 case
Lodowski v. State, 490 A.2d 1228 (Md. 1986). “1985); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207 (8) (1982); Vt.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207(a) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Danny Ray Hensley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207(a)(10) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Christopher C. Solomon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “As part of the Public Safety Act of 2016, section 40-35-207 was amended to require the results of a “validated risk and needs assessment” be included in the presentence report.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207(a)(2) — 1 case
State v. Flynn, 675 S.W.2d 494 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). “As to the latter point, the state maintains that it is relevant to the defendant’s “social situation and background,” a factor included in the sentencing criteria of T.C.A. § 40-35-207(a)(2). In contrast, the defendant characterizes the unidentified policeman’s statement about…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207(a)(3) — 1 case
State v. Pugh, 713 S.W.2d 682 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). “TCA § 40-35-207(a)(3) and (5). The presentence report shall be filed with the court clerk and complete copies will be made available to the parties for at least five days prior to the hearing.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207(a)(4) — 4 cases
State of Tennessee v. Michael Lee Priest (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Walter H. Webb (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
Artis Reese v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207(a)(5) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Cleo D. Gadson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207(a)(7) — 4 cases
State v. Butler, 108 S.W.3d 845 (Tenn. 2003). “Though the defendant's ability to pay the fine is a factor in the establishment of the fine, see Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-207(a)(7) (1997), it is not a controlling factor.”
State of Tennessee v. Eric D. Crenshaw (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207(a)(8) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Cleo D. Gadson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Glyn Dale (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207(a)(l) — 1 case
State v. Pugh, 713 S.W.2d 682 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). “TCA § 40-35-207(a)(3) and (5). The presentence report shall be filed with the court clerk and complete copies will be made available to the parties for at least five days prior to the hearing.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207(d) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Christopher C. Solomon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “As part of the Public Safety Act of 2016, section 40-35-207 was amended to require the results of a “validated risk and needs assessment” be included in the presentence report.”
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.