Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-309 (2026)

Probation authorized outside jurisdiction of court - Transfer or retention of jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever a court authorizes a defendant sentenced to supervised probation to reside in this state but outside the jurisdiction of the sentencing court, the court may:

(1) Retain jurisdiction over the defendant; or

(2) Transfer jurisdiction over the defendant to an appropriate court in the jurisdiction in which the defendant will reside. A court to which jurisdiction is transferred shall have the same powers as the sentencing court.

Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: State v. Malone, 928 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Malone, 928 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “4 Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-309 (1990) permits a trial court to transfer jurisdiction, over supervised probation, to “an appropriate court.”

State v. Anderson, 7 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “Also, she argues that her felony community corrections sentence is more analogous to felony probation under Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-309, which allows supervised probation outside the trial court’s jurisdiction for residents of another judicial district.”

State v. Melissa D. Anderson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Also, she argues that her felony community corrections sentence is more analogous to felony probation under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-309 , which allows supervised probation outside the trial court’s jurisdiction for residents of another judicial district.”

State of Tennessee v. Joshua Lynn Damesworth (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Defense Counsel argued that the State had failed to prove, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-309, that the Defendant had intentionally failed to comply with the restitution order, despite having the ability to pay.”

State of Tennessee v. Steven Ray Hicks (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “§ 40-35-309(c) (emphasis added). -2- The order of the trial court extending the Defendant’s probation for one year is void.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-309(c) — 1 case

State of Tennessee v. Steven Ray Hicks (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “§ 40-35-309(c) (emphasis added). -2- The order of the trial court extending the Defendant’s probation for one year is void.”

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.