Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-306 (2026)

Split confinement - Probation following partial service of sentence

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

Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 139 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: State v. Ruiz, 204 S.W.3d 772 (Tenn. 2006).
State v. Ruiz, 204 S.W.3d 772 (Tenn. 2006). · cites it 17× “§ 40-35-306(c) (2003). Defendants may make such applications “at no less than two-month intervals.”
Shorts v. Bartholomew, 278 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. 2009). · cites it 14× “” See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-306 (2006), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.”
State v. Beard, 189 S.W.3d 730 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-306 (2003) (emphasis added).”
State v. Sutton, 166 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-306(a) (2003).”
Shorts v. Bartholomew, 255 F. App'x 46 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “The court imposed “split confinement” sentences for each of the ten counts,1 pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-306 (a), ordered that the sentences run concurrently, and granted credit for time served.”
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan David Patterson, 564 S.W.3d 423 (Tenn. 2018). · cites it 2× “We note, however, that while our holding herein repudiates the dicta of Ruiz , we have not disturbed its primary holding that defendants seeking suspension of sentences under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-306(c) must establish that "post-sentencing information or…”
State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(2)(b)(Supp.”
State v. Ball, 973 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-303(a), (b). A sentence of split confinement involves the grant of probation after the partial service of a sentence.”
State v. Dowdy, 894 S.W.2d 301 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “The trial court sentenced the offender to a term of “split confinement,” which is defined by Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-306. It is for this reason that the principal cases upon which the appellant relies are not applicable here.”
State v. Clifton, 880 S.W.2d 737 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “It notes that the Sentencing Commission Comments to T.C.A. § 40-35-306 speak of split confinement or “shock probation” as a valuable means of combining both incarceration and rehabilitation.”
State v. Stone, 880 S.W.2d 746 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-306 and -307 (1982) [repealed].”
State v. Bolling, 75 S.W.3d 418 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-306(2) (1997). The record in this case, however, demonstrates that the presumption of favorable candidacy was soundly rebutted by the defendant’s history of repeated lawless behavior, particularly as regards prior gambling offenses.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-306(2) — 6 cases
State v. Bolling, 75 S.W.3d 418 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-306(2) (1997). The record in this case, however, demonstrates that the presumption of favorable candidacy was soundly rebutted by the defendant’s history of repeated lawless behavior, particularly as regards prior gambling offenses.”
State of Tennessee v. Kerry D. Hewson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005).
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Ray Dockery (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-306(A) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Adrian Patterson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-306(a) — 34 cases
Shorts v. Bartholomew, 278 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. 2009). “” See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-306 (2006), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.”
State v. Sutton, 166 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2005). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-306(a) (2003).”
State of Tennessee v. Jackie L. Dozier (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-306(a)(3) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Kellom Timbs (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-306(b) — 1 case
Shorts v. Bartholomew, 278 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. 2009). “” See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-306 (2006), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-306(c) — 11 cases
State v. Ruiz, 204 S.W.3d 772 (Tenn. 2006). “§ 40-35-306(c) (2003). Defendants may make such applications “at no less than two-month intervals.”
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan David Patterson, 564 S.W.3d 423 (Tenn. 2018). “We note, however, that while our holding herein repudiates the dicta of Ruiz , we have not disturbed its primary holding that defendants seeking suspension of sentences under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-306(c) must establish that "post-sentencing information or…”
State of Tennessee v. Charles Montague (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-306(e) — 1 case
State v. Ruiz, 204 S.W.3d 772 (Tenn. 2006). “§ 40-35-306(c) (2003). Defendants may make such applications “at no less than two-month intervals.”
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.