Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313 (2026)

Probation - Conditions - Discharge and dismissal - Expunction from official records - Fee

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

Amended by 2020 Tenn. Acts, ch. 741, s 1, eff. 6/22/2020.

Amended by 2020 Tenn. Acts, ch. 607, s 1, eff. 3/20/2020.

Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 474, s 14, eff. 1/1/2020.

Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 474, s 15, eff. 1/1/2020.

Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 200, s 4, eff. 7/1/2019.

Amended by 2018 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1050, s 8, eff. 1/1/2019.

Amended by 2018 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1050, s 9, eff. 1/1/2019.

Amended by 2018 Tenn. Acts, ch. 951, s 1, eff. 7/1/2018.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 466, s 4, eff. 7/1/2017.

Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1026, s 1, eff. 7/1/2016.

Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 993, s 15, eff. 7/1/2016.

Amended by 2015 Tenn. Acts, ch. 125, Secs.s 1, s 4 eff. 7/1/2015.

Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6; 1990, ch. 980, §§ 25, 26; 1995, ch. 349, § 1; 1996, ch. 997, § 1; 1997 , ch. 455, § 2; 1997 , ch. 456, § 2; 1998, ch. 1099, §§ 8 - 10; 2000, ch. 645, § 2; 2000, ch. 813, § 7; 2002, ch. 849, §§ 14 - 16; 2003 , ch. 323, § 2; 2004, ch. 780, § 9; 2006, ch. 973, § 3; 2007 , ch. 528, § 2; 2007 , ch. 536, § 1; 2011 , ch. 484, § 2; 2012 , ch. 766, § 2; 2012, ch. 1041, § 4.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 534 cases (59 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Wright v. Tennessee Peace Officer Standards & Training Comm'n, 277 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).
Wright v. Tennessee Peace Officer Standards & Training Comm'n, 277 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 45× “We therefore turn to the dispositive issue in this case: whether the POST rules allowing for consideration of expunged violations contradict the statutory provisions relating to expungement in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. B. The judicial diversion statute declares that “[t]he…”
Jose Rodriguez a.k.a. Alex Lopez v. State of Tennessee, 437 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2014). · cites it 34× “§§ 40-30-101 to -122 (2012 & Supp.2013), may be used to collaterally attack a guilty plea that has been expunged after successful completion of judicial diversion.”
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014). · cites it 13× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(A) (“The court may defer proceedings against a qualified defendant.”
State v. Schindler, 986 S.W.2d 209 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 26× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. Ex-pungement returns the person to the position “occupied before such arrest or indictment or information.”
State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. 2014). · cites it 17× “§ 40-35-313(a)( l)(B)(ii). ' . By contrast, in King , factors which we considered as evidence of a positive social history favoring judicial diversion were: "volunteering in the community,” "obtaining gainful employment,” and the defendant having two parents testify "that they…”
State v. Norris, 47 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). · cites it 25× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313 (a)(1)(A) (1997).”
State v. Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d 163 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). · cites it 12× “Bonestel contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant him judicial diversion pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. Bonestel and Davidson both contend that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to suspend their respective sentences and…”
State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 11× “35 When the appellant contends that the trial court committed error in refusing to impose a sentence pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313, commonly referred to as “judicial diversion,” a different standard of appellate review applies.”
State v. Vasser, 870 S.W.2d 543 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). · cites it 18× “The trial court stated that the defendant was an excellent candidate for a “deferral of prosecution” pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-35-313, but ruled that it had no authority to grant the relief requested.”
MacOn v. Shelby Cnty. Gov't Civil Serv. Merit Bd., 309 S.W.3d 504 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 18× “T.C.A. § 40-35-313(b) (2000 & 2008 Supp.).”
State v. Turco, 108 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. 2003). · cites it 12× “We begin our analysis of this issue with a consideration of the judicial diversion statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313 (1997 & Supp.2002). Under that statute, a “qualified defendant,” who has pleaded guilty (or nolo contendere) or has been found guilty of a…”
State v. Johnson, 15 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “The trial court placed the defendant on judicial diversion pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313 (a)(l)(A). The defendant was placed on probation for a period of 11 months and 29 days.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(3)(A) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(B)(ii)(a) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a) — 37 cases
Miller v. Tennessee Bd. of Nursing, 256 S.W.3d 225 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. 2014). “§ 40-35-313(a)( l)(B)(ii). ' . By contrast, in King , factors which we considered as evidence of a positive social history favoring judicial diversion were: "volunteering in the community,” "obtaining gainful employment,” and the defendant having two parents testify "that they…”
State v. Harris, 953 S.W.2d 701 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State of Tennessee v. Freddie McCullough (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(1) — 9 cases
State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “35 When the appellant contends that the trial court committed error in refusing to impose a sentence pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313, commonly referred to as “judicial diversion,” a different standard of appellate review applies.”
State v. Harris, 953 S.W.2d 701 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State of Tennessee v. Shirley Peters (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
State of Tennessee v. David Hester (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
State of Tennessee v. Jared Singleton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(A) — 150 cases
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(A) (“The court may defer proceedings against a qualified defendant.”
State of Tennessee v. Westley A. Albright, 564 S.W.3d 809 (Tenn. 2018).
State v. Norris, 47 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313 (a)(1)(A) (1997).”
State of Tennessee v. Teddy Ray Mitchell, 343 S.W.3d 381 (Tenn. 2011).
Jose Rodriguez a.k.a. Alex Lopez v. State of Tennessee, 437 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2014). “§§ 40-30-101 to -122 (2012 & Supp.2013), may be used to collaterally attack a guilty plea that has been expunged after successful completion of judicial diversion.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(B) — 21 cases
State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. 2014). “§ 40-35-313(a)( l)(B)(ii). ' . By contrast, in King , factors which we considered as evidence of a positive social history favoring judicial diversion were: "volunteering in the community,” "obtaining gainful employment,” and the defendant having two parents testify "that they…”
State of Tennessee v. Matthew Stalcup (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
State of Tennessee v. Jayme Lynn Shaffer (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(B)(I) — 20 cases
State of Tennessee v. Marilyn Sesler (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Delmonta Hill (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Devonte Black (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(B)(i) — 128 cases
State of Tennessee v. Jason Erik Redden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Micah England (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Terry Butler (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(B)(ii) — 10 cases
State of Tennessee v. Paul Avery Reno (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Jason D. Kubelick (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Locke (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(B)(iii) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Gary E. Brown (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(2) — 92 cases
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(A) (“The court may defer proceedings against a qualified defendant.”
Jose Rodriguez a.k.a. Alex Lopez v. State of Tennessee, 437 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2014). “§§ 40-30-101 to -122 (2012 & Supp.2013), may be used to collaterally attack a guilty plea that has been expunged after successful completion of judicial diversion.”
State v. Schindler, 986 S.W.2d 209 (Tenn. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. Ex-pungement returns the person to the position “occupied before such arrest or indictment or information.”
State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. 2014). “§ 40-35-313(a)( l)(B)(ii). ' . By contrast, in King , factors which we considered as evidence of a positive social history favoring judicial diversion were: "volunteering in the community,” "obtaining gainful employment,” and the defendant having two parents testify "that they…”
Wright v. Tennessee Peace Officer Standards & Training Comm'n, 277 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “We therefore turn to the dispositive issue in this case: whether the POST rules allowing for consideration of expunged violations contradict the statutory provisions relating to expungement in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. B. The judicial diversion statute declares that “[t]he…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456 (Tenn. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(3) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Willie Mcdonald (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(3)(A) — 3 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(3)(B) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Glover (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(3)(a) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Keelan Washington (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(l) — 6 cases
State v. Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d 163 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “Bonestel contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant him judicial diversion pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. Bonestel and Davidson both contend that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to suspend their respective sentences and…”
State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “35 When the appellant contends that the trial court committed error in refusing to impose a sentence pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313, commonly referred to as “judicial diversion,” a different standard of appellate review applies.”
State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
Alder v. State, 108 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002).
State v. Harris, 953 S.W.2d 701 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(l)(A) — 12 cases
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(A) (“The court may defer proceedings against a qualified defendant.”
State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. 2014). “§ 40-35-313(a)( l)(B)(ii). ' . By contrast, in King , factors which we considered as evidence of a positive social history favoring judicial diversion were: "volunteering in the community,” "obtaining gainful employment,” and the defendant having two parents testify "that they…”
Alder v. State, 108 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002).
State v. Turco, 108 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. 2003). “We begin our analysis of this issue with a consideration of the judicial diversion statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313 (1997 & Supp.2002). Under that statute, a “qualified defendant,” who has pleaded guilty (or nolo contendere) or has been found guilty of a…”
State v. Schindler, 986 S.W.2d 209 (Tenn. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. Ex-pungement returns the person to the position “occupied before such arrest or indictment or information.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(l)(B) — 3 cases
State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. 2014). “§ 40-35-313(a)( l)(B)(ii). ' . By contrast, in King , factors which we considered as evidence of a positive social history favoring judicial diversion were: "volunteering in the community,” "obtaining gainful employment,” and the defendant having two parents testify "that they…”
State v. Turco, 108 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. 2003). “We begin our analysis of this issue with a consideration of the judicial diversion statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313 (1997 & Supp.2002). Under that statute, a “qualified defendant,” who has pleaded guilty (or nolo contendere) or has been found guilty of a…”
State v. Schindler, 986 S.W.2d 209 (Tenn. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. Ex-pungement returns the person to the position “occupied before such arrest or indictment or information.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(l)(B)(i) — 4 cases
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(A) (“The court may defer proceedings against a qualified defendant.”
State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. 2014). “§ 40-35-313(a)( l)(B)(ii). ' . By contrast, in King , factors which we considered as evidence of a positive social history favoring judicial diversion were: "volunteering in the community,” "obtaining gainful employment,” and the defendant having two parents testify "that they…”
Jose Rodriguez a.k.a. Alex Lopez v. State of Tennessee, 437 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2014). “§§ 40-30-101 to -122 (2012 & Supp.2013), may be used to collaterally attack a guilty plea that has been expunged after successful completion of judicial diversion.”
State v. Soller, 181 S.W.3d 645 (Tenn. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(b) — 52 cases
MacOn v. Shelby Cnty. Gov't Civil Serv. Merit Bd., 309 S.W.3d 504 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “T.C.A. § 40-35-313(b) (2000 & 2008 Supp.).”
Jose Rodriguez a.k.a. Alex Lopez v. State of Tennessee, 437 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2014). “§§ 40-30-101 to -122 (2012 & Supp.2013), may be used to collaterally attack a guilty plea that has been expunged after successful completion of judicial diversion.”
Wright v. Tennessee Peace Officer Standards & Training Comm'n, 277 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “We therefore turn to the dispositive issue in this case: whether the POST rules allowing for consideration of expunged violations contradict the statutory provisions relating to expungement in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. B. The judicial diversion statute declares that “[t]he…”
State v. Schindler, 986 S.W.2d 209 (Tenn. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. Ex-pungement returns the person to the position “occupied before such arrest or indictment or information.”
State v. Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d 163 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “Bonestel contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant him judicial diversion pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. Bonestel and Davidson both contend that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to suspend their respective sentences and…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(b)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Schindler, 986 S.W.2d 209 (Tenn. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. Ex-pungement returns the person to the position “occupied before such arrest or indictment or information.”
Bell v. TN Farmers Mut. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(b)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Mike Coffelt, 749 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(c) — 3 cases
Jose Rodriguez a.k.a. Alex Lopez v. State of Tennessee, 437 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2014). “§§ 40-30-101 to -122 (2012 & Supp.2013), may be used to collaterally attack a guilty plea that has been expunged after successful completion of judicial diversion.”
Wright v. Tennessee Peace Officer Standards & Training Comm'n, 277 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “We therefore turn to the dispositive issue in this case: whether the POST rules allowing for consideration of expunged violations contradict the statutory provisions relating to expungement in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. B. The judicial diversion statute declares that “[t]he…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(d)(l) — 1 case
Wright v. Tennessee Peace Officer Standards & Training Comm'n, 277 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “We therefore turn to the dispositive issue in this case: whether the POST rules allowing for consideration of expunged violations contradict the statutory provisions relating to expungement in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-313. B. The judicial diversion statute declares that “[t]he…”
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.