Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-305 (2026)
Appearance bond
✓ current as of May 2026
Upon the imposition of a sentence involving release into the community as provided in this chapter, the trial judge shall possess the power to require the defendant, the judgment against whom has been suspended, to execute an appearance bond in the sum deemed right and proper by the trial judge or, in the alternative, to execute a personal recognizance bond without sureties in the sum the trial judge may fix, both bail bond and recognizance, as the case may be, to contain conditions requiring the appearance of the defendant from court to court or, in the alternative, to appear before the trial judge at any regular or special term of the court.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2021 · leading case: Thomas Edward Kottewa v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
David Kyle Gilley v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “See T.C.A. §40-35-305(1). The post-conviction court noted that the petitioner “did not allege the Code section in which he was seeking DNA testing; however, the petitioner did not meet the requisite standard for [either section].”
Thomas Edward Kottewa v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “In ruling on petitioner’s request for post-conviction DNA analysis, the post-conviction court determined that petitioner failed to establish the first factor of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-305, that there is a probability that he would not have been prosecuted or…”
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Lee Nelson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014). “See T.C.A. § 40-35-305. The petitioner filed his present post-conviction petition for DNA analysis seeking relief under both of these sections.”
Est. of Sedley Alley v. State of Tennessee (2021). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-305 . The Estate focuses on the non obstante clause that begins section 40-30-303, “Notwithstanding part 1 of this chapter, or any other provision of law governing post- conviction relief to the contrary,” seemingly for the proposition that the DNA…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-305(1) — 1 case
David Kyle Gilley v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “See T.C.A. §40-35-305(1). The post-conviction court noted that the petitioner “did not allege the Code section in which he was seeking DNA testing; however, the petitioner did not meet the requisite standard for [either section].”
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.