Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311 (2026)
Issuance of warrant or summons upon violation of conditions of probation - Probation revocation hearing - Admissibility of laboratory report - Revocation of probation and suspension of sentence - Use of validated risk and needs assessment
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a)
- (1) Whenever it comes to the attention of the trial judge that a defendant who has been released upon suspension of sentence has been guilty of a breach of the laws of this state or has violated the conditions of probation, the trial judge shall have the power to cause to be issued under the trial judge's hand:
- (A) A warrant for the arrest of the defendant as in any other criminal case; or
- (B) For a technical violation brought by a probation officer, and subject to the discretion of the judge, a criminal summons.
- (2) Regardless of whether the defendant is on probation for a misdemeanor or felony, or whether the warrant or summons is issued by a general sessions court judge or the judge of a court of record, a probation officer or a peace officer of the county in which the probationer is found may execute the warrant or serve the summons.
- (1) Whenever it comes to the attention of the trial judge that a defendant who has been released upon suspension of sentence has been guilty of a breach of the laws of this state or has violated the conditions of probation, the trial judge shall have the power to cause to be issued under the trial judge's hand:
- (b) Whenever a person is arrested or summoned for the violation of probation and suspension of sentence, the trial judge granting the probation and suspension of sentence, the trial judge's successor, or any judge of equal jurisdiction who is requested by the granting trial judge to do so shall, at the earliest practicable time, inquire into the charges and determine whether or not a violation has occurred and, at the inquiry, the defendant must be present and is entitled to be represented by counsel and has the right to introduce testimony in the defendant's behalf.
- (c)
- (1) A laboratory report regarding a defendant's drug test may be admissible in probation revocation proceedings, even though the laboratory technician who performed the test is not present to testify, when accompanied by an affidavit containing at least the following information:
- (A) The identity of the certifying technician;
- (B) A statement of qualifications from the certifying technician;
- (C) A specific description of the testing methodology;
- (D) A statement that the method of testing was the most accurate test for this particular drug;
- (E) A certification that the test results were reliable and accurate;
- (F) A declaration that all established procedures and protocols were followed; and
- (G) A statement of acknowledgment that submission of false information in the affidavit may subject the affiant to prosecution for the criminal offense of perjury pursuant to § 39-16-702.
- (2) Notwithstanding subdivision (c)(1), the judge shall, upon seasonable objection and for good cause shown, require that the laboratory technician appear and testify at the probation revocation hearing.
- (3) If the state intends to introduce a laboratory report and affidavit in lieu of the live testimony of the laboratory technician as authorized by this subsection (c), it shall provide the defendant or the defendant's attorney, if known, with a copy of the report and affidavit at least five (5) days prior to the revocation hearing.
- (1) A laboratory report regarding a defendant's drug test may be admissible in probation revocation proceedings, even though the laboratory technician who performed the test is not present to testify, when accompanied by an affidavit containing at least the following information:
- (d)
- (1) The trial judge may enter judgment upon the question of the charges as the trial judge may deem right and proper under the evidence adduced before the trial judge. If the trial judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated the conditions of probation and suspension of sentence, then the court may revoke the defendant's probation and suspension of sentence, in full or in part, pursuant to § 40-35-310. The court may sentence the defendant to a sentence of probation for the remainder of the unexpired term.
- (2) Notwithstanding subdivision (d)(1), the trial judge shall not revoke a defendant's probation and suspension of sentence for a felony offense, whether temporarily under subdivision (e)(1) or otherwise, based upon one (1) instance of technical violation or violations.
- (3) [Deleted by 2022 amendment.]
- (e)
- (1) If the trial judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated the conditions of probation and suspension of sentence for a felony offense by engaging in conduct that is a second or subsequent instance of a technical violation pursuant to subdivision (d)(2), then the trial judge may temporarily revoke the probation and suspension of sentence by an order duly entered upon the minutes of the court, and:
- (A) Impose a term of incarceration not to exceed:
- (i) Fifteen (15) days for a first revocation;
- (ii) Thirty (30) days for a second revocation;
- (iii) Ninety (90) days for a third revocation; or
- (iv) The remainder of the sentence for a fourth or subsequent revocation; or
- (B) Resentence the defendant for the remainder of the unexpired term to a sentence of probation that includes the condition of participating in a community-based alternative to incarceration as provided in § 40-35-104(c)(9); provided, that the violation of probation and suspension is a technical violation and does not involve the commission of a new offense.
- (A) Impose a term of incarceration not to exceed:
- (2) If the trial judge revokes a defendant's probation and suspension of sentence after finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant has committed a new felony, new Class A misdemeanor, zero tolerance violation as defined by the department of correction community supervision sanction matrix, absconding, or contacting the defendant's victim in violation of a condition of probation, then the trial judge may revoke the probation and suspension of sentence by an order duly entered upon the minutes of the court, and cause the defendant to commence the execution of the judgment as originally entered, which may be reduced by an amount of time not to exceed the amount of time the defendant has successfully served on probation and suspension of sentence prior to the violation.
- (3) If the trial judge revokes a defendant's probation and suspension of sentence, then the defendant has the right to appeal.
- (4) If a person is serving two (2) or more concurrent probationary sentences and the person's probation is revoked on one (1) probationary sentence, then the person must receive credit for the time served as a result of that probation revocation against any other concurrent probationary sentence that is subsequently revoked in any jurisdiction in this state.
- (1) If the trial judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated the conditions of probation and suspension of sentence for a felony offense by engaging in conduct that is a second or subsequent instance of a technical violation pursuant to subdivision (d)(2), then the trial judge may temporarily revoke the probation and suspension of sentence by an order duly entered upon the minutes of the court, and:
- (f) The court may consider the results of an offender's validated risk and needs assessment in determining the appropriate disposition of the probation violation charge and may request an updated validated risk and needs assessment be performed.
- (g) As used in this section, "technical violation" means an act that violates the terms or conditions of probation but does not constitute a new felony, new Class A misdemeanor, zero tolerance violation as defined by the department of correction community supervision sanction matrix, absconding, or contacting the defendant's victim in violation of a condition of probation.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1060, Secs.s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7, s8 eff. 7/1/2022.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1060, s 1, eff. 7/1/2022.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 981, Secs.s2, s3, s4 eff. 7/1/2022.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 981, s 1, eff. 7/1/2022.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 541, s 1, eff. 7/1/2021.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 409, s 25, eff. 7/1/2021.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 409, s 24, eff. 7/1/2021.
Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 906, s 11, eff. 1/1/2017.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 818
cases (148 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Cox v. State, 53 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
Cox v. State, 53 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “2d at 426 (quoting the then-applicable version of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311 (b)). Duke is not applicable, however, to the present case.”
State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “See T.C.A. § 40-35-311(a). This modification of Black's sentence eliminates the disparity that originally existed and will assure fair and consistent treatment of the appellants in conformity with the purposes of the Act.”
State of Tennessee v. Westley A. Albright, 564 S.W.3d 809 (Tenn. 2018). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311 (e)(1) (2014).”
State v. Beard, 189 S.W.3d 730 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-311 (2003). Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-310 provides as follows: The trial judge shall possess the power, at any time within the maximum time which was directed and ordered by the court for such suspension, after proceeding as provided in §…”
State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489 (Tenn. 2001). “§ 40-35-311(d) (1997) (emphasis added); see also id.”
State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “The statute, in part, states as follows: The trial judge shall possess the power, at any time within the maximum time which was directed and ordered by the court for such suspension, after proceeding as provided in § 40-35-311, to revoke and annul such suspension, and in such…”
State v. Walker, 307 S.W.3d 260 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “2d 177 (2004), that the affidavit was inadmissible under Crawford because he was unable to cross-examine the declar-ant of the affidavit, and that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-311 is no longer valid because it was enacted prior to Crawford .”
State of Tennessee v. James Edward Farrar, Jr., 355 S.W.3d 582 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “10, 2010), and by committing the offense of public intoxication, see T.C.A. § 40-35-311(a) (declaring a “breach of the laws of this state” is a violation of probation).”
State v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1999). “Should the defendant fail to comply with the terms and conditions of supervision, the release may be revoked by the original trial judge pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311 . See Tenn. Code Ann.”
State v. Conner, 919 S.W.2d 48 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “The former provision states in part: The trial judge shall possess the power, at any time within the maximum time which was directed and ordered by the court for such suspension, after proceeding as provided in § 40-35-311, to revoke and annul such suspension, and in such cases…”
State v. Johnson, 15 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311 (a). 3. If the trial court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated probation, the trial court may find a violation of probation.”
State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-311. Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-310 provides: The trial judge shall possess the power, at any time within the maximum time which was directed and ordered by the court for such suspension, after proceeding as provided in § 40-35-311, to revoke and…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(1997) — 1 case
State v. Stacey Fleming (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(a) — 42 cases
State of Tennessee v. James Edward Farrar, Jr., 355 S.W.3d 582 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “10, 2010), and by committing the offense of public intoxication, see T.C.A. § 40-35-311(a) (declaring a “breach of the laws of this state” is a violation of probation).”
State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “See T.C.A. § 40-35-311(a). This modification of Black's sentence eliminates the disparity that originally existed and will assure fair and consistent treatment of the appellants in conformity with the purposes of the Act.”
Massey v. State, 929 S.W.2d 399 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State v. Keel, 882 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
State v. Stubblefield, 953 S.W.2d 223 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(a)(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. James Brent Wall (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(a)(1)(A) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Jay Junior Heifner (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
State of Tennessee v. Jay Junior Heifner (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(a)(1)(B) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. James Brent Wall (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(b) — 29 cases
Cox v. State, 53 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “2d at 426 (quoting the then-applicable version of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311 (b)). Duke is not applicable, however, to the present case.”
Bentley v. State, 938 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State v. Duke, 902 S.W.2d 424 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
State v. Merriweather, 34 S.W.3d 881 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).
State v. Cunningham, 972 S.W.2d 16 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(b)(1) — 1 case
State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “See T.C.A. § 40-35-311(a). This modification of Black's sentence eliminates the disparity that originally existed and will assure fair and consistent treatment of the appellants in conformity with the purposes of the Act.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(b)(1997) — 1 case
Samuel K. Robinson v. Glen Turner, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(b)(l) — 1 case
State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “See T.C.A. § 40-35-311(a). This modification of Black's sentence eliminates the disparity that originally existed and will assure fair and consistent treatment of the appellants in conformity with the purposes of the Act.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(c) — 3 cases
State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “The statute, in part, states as follows: The trial judge shall possess the power, at any time within the maximum time which was directed and ordered by the court for such suspension, after proceeding as provided in § 40-35-311, to revoke and annul such suspension, and in such…”
State of Tennessee v. Daniel S. Sharp (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Tina B. Carroll (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(c)(1) — 8 cases
State of Tennessee v. William Carter King (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Marshall Ward Howell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
State of Tennessee v. John Patrick Nash (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Miller Waire (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005).
State of Tennessee v. John Brewer (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(c)(l) — 1 case
State v. Walker, 307 S.W.3d 260 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “2d 177 (2004), that the affidavit was inadmissible under Crawford because he was unable to cross-examine the declar-ant of the affidavit, and that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-311 is no longer valid because it was enacted prior to Crawford .”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(d) — 40 cases
State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489 (Tenn. 2001). “§ 40-35-311(d) (1997) (emphasis added); see also id.”
State v. Wall, 909 S.W.2d 8 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “The statute, in part, states as follows: The trial judge shall possess the power, at any time within the maximum time which was directed and ordered by the court for such suspension, after proceeding as provided in § 40-35-311, to revoke and annul such suspension, and in such…”
State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001).
State v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1999). “Should the defendant fail to comply with the terms and conditions of supervision, the release may be revoked by the original trial judge pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311 . See Tenn. Code Ann.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(d)(1) — 14 cases
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Davidson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Jerome Nchiyako Dooley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
State of Tennessee v. William Lloyd Smith, III (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
State of Tennessee v. Ulester A. Cross (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
State of Tennessee v. Glen Edward Miller (Tenn. Crim. App. 2023).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(d)(2) — 9 cases
State of Tennessee v. Wayne Morris Flood (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Gene Carney (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Cody W. Bales (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
State of Tennessee v. Christian Workman (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Steven Bryant (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(d)(3) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Jerome Nchiyako Dooley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
State of Tennessee v. William Lloyd Smith, III (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(e) — 206 cases
State v. Beard, 189 S.W.3d 730 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-311 (2003). Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-310 provides as follows: The trial judge shall possess the power, at any time within the maximum time which was directed and ordered by the court for such suspension, after proceeding as provided in §…”
State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489 (Tenn. 2001). “§ 40-35-311(d) (1997) (emphasis added); see also id.”
State v. Reams, 265 S.W.3d 423 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
State v. Anthony, 109 S.W.3d 377 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
State of Tennessee v. Paula Jean Lacommare (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(e)(1) — 143 cases
State of Tennessee v. Tommy Tyrell Johnson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Gregory T. Phelps (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Kendall J. Summers (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Daniel S. Sharp (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Larry Sylvester Woods (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(e)(1)(A) — 15 cases
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Dewayne Cooper (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Lynn Taylor (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Kenderick Michael Tucker (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Anthony Szostak, III (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Rebecca Doles (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(e)(1)(B) — 4 cases
State of Tennessee v. Charles E. Mason, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Dewayne Cooper (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Thomas James Heffner (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Eric O. Turner (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(e)(2) — 36 cases
State of Tennessee v. Jordan Isaiah Mosby (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Nathaniel Isaac Herrick (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Jerome Nchiyako Dooley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Anthony Szostak, III (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Kadrean J. Brewster (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(e)(2012) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Eric Dewayne Finley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(e)(4) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Michelle Bennington (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(e)(A) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Richie P. Hawkins (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(f) — 4 cases
State of Tennessee v. Charles E. Mason, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
State of Tennessee v. Gary Wayne Bunch (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021).
State of Tennessee v. Chad M. Varnell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021).
State of Tennessee v. Corey Ellis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(g) — 7 cases
State of Tennessee v. John Butler (Tenn. Crim. App. 2023).
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Gene Carney (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Steven Bryant (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
State of Tennessee v. William Goldsberry, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
State of Tennessee v. Tailor James Simpson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2023).
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.