Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-212 (2026)
Court to determine location and conditions of sentence - Probation - Retention of jurisdiction during sentence
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) In imposing a sentence, the court shall determine under what conditions a sentence will be served as provided by law. A defendant may be sentenced to the department of correction unless prohibited by § 40-35-104(b).
- (b) A court may also order probation where a defendant is eligible by law either:
- (1) Immediately upon sentencing;
- (2) In conjunction with a specific period of confinement pursuant to § 40-35-306; or
- (3) In conjunction with a period of periodic confinement pursuant to § 40-35-307.
- (c) Unless the defendant receives a sentence in the department, the court shall retain full jurisdiction over the manner of the defendant's sentence service.
- (d)
- (1) Notwithstanding subsection (c), the court shall retain full jurisdiction over a defendant sentenced to the department during the time the defendant is being housed in a local jail or workhouse awaiting transfer to the department. The jurisdiction shall continue until the defendant is actually transferred to the physical custody of the department.
- (2) The sheriff shall promptly transfer any inmate sentenced to the department of correction who is being housed in the sheriff's local jail awaiting transfer when called upon to do so by a department of correction official. The department shall notify the sheriff in writing of the date the department intends to take custody of the inmate for transfer to the department. The notice shall be given as soon as practicable before the transfer date. Failure to do so shall result in the state withholding any housing reimbursement allowance that might otherwise be due the county for housing the inmate for any day or portion of a day that the sheriff fails or refuses to transfer custody of the inmate to the department after being requested in writing to do so. The department shall notify each sheriff of the provisions of this subdivision (d)(2) and the consequences for failing to comply with it.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6; 2005, ch. 174, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: State v. Edenfield, 299 S.W.3d 344 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009).
State v. Edenfield, 299 S.W.3d 344 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “T.C.A. § 40-35-212 (2006), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts (emphasis added).”
State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-212(c) (1997) (“Unless the defendant receives a sentence in the department, the court shall retain full jurisdiction over the manner of the defendant’s sentence service.”
Shorts v. Bartholomew, 278 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. 2009). “, Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-212,-303(e),-314,-501 (2006); 41-2-111,-123,-149 *275 (2006).”
State v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1999). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-212(d) (1990); Bowling, 958 S.”
State v. Blackstock, 19 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2000). “While it is true that a trial court loses jurisdiction over the sentence after a defendant is in the custody of the Department of Correction pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-212(d) (1997), this section does not prevent a reversal of the sentence and a remand for a new…”
State v. Moore, 814 S.W.2d 381 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “35; T.C.A. §§ 40-35-212(c) and (d), -306 through -316, and -319.”
State v. Meeks, 779 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “See T.C.A. § 40-35-212(a) (Supp.1988). Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.”
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “This general conclusion is bolstered by § 40-35-212, which grants the sentencing court substantial discretion to “determine where and under what conditions a sentence will be served as provided by law.”
State v. Lewis, 917 S.W.2d 251 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-401(a) and -402(a); Tenn.”
State v. Smith, 909 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “” It cites T.C.A. § 40-35-212 relative to the trial court retaining “full jurisdiction over the manner of the defendant’s sentence service” and having the power to “determine under what conditions a sentence will be served as provided by law.”
State v. Malone, 928 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Contrary to appellant’s assertion, Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-212(c) (1990) does not permit a trial court to transfer supervision over probation to the DOC.”
State v. Bowling, 958 S.W.2d 362 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “See T.C.A. § 40-35-212(d). Pursuant to T.C.A.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-212(a): 2 cases
State v. Meeks, 779 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “See T.C.A. § 40-35-212(a) (Supp.1988). Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.”
Kevin D. McMillan v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-212(c): 13 cases
State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-212(c) (1997) (“Unless the defendant receives a sentence in the department, the court shall retain full jurisdiction over the manner of the defendant’s sentence service.”
State v. Moore, 814 S.W.2d 381 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “35; T.C.A. §§ 40-35-212(c) and (d), -306 through -316, and -319.”
State v. Lewis, 917 S.W.2d 251 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-401(a) and -402(a); Tenn.”
State v. Malone, 928 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Contrary to appellant’s assertion, Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-212(c) (1990) does not permit a trial court to transfer supervision over probation to the DOC.”
State of Tennessee v. Tamela Scott (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-212(d): 18 cases
State v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1999). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-212(d) (1990); Bowling, 958 S.”
State v. Blackstock, 19 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2000). “While it is true that a trial court loses jurisdiction over the sentence after a defendant is in the custody of the Department of Correction pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-212(d) (1997), this section does not prevent a reversal of the sentence and a remand for a new…”
State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-212(c) (1997) (“Unless the defendant receives a sentence in the department, the court shall retain full jurisdiction over the manner of the defendant’s sentence service.”
State v. Edenfield, 299 S.W.3d 344 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “T.C.A. § 40-35-212 (2006), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts (emphasis added).”
State v. Bowling, 958 S.W.2d 362 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “See T.C.A. § 40-35-212(d). Pursuant to T.C.A.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-212(d)(1): 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Richard P. Nielsen, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
State of Tennessee v. Kristopher Lee Colbert (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
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.