Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-103 (2026)
Purposes of chapter
✓ current as of May 2026
The purposes of this chapter are to:
- (1) Establish a mechanism for using state funds to contract with local governments and qualified private entities to develop community-based alternatives to incarceration that provide a treatment-centered pathway and community-based supervision for offenders, thereby reserving state penal institution, local jail, or workhouse bed space for other offenders;
- (2) Facilitate the growth of treatment-centered pathways to alleviate geographical disparities in Tennessee with respect to the availability of such pathways available to judges at sentencing; and
- (3) Reduce the number of felony offenders committed to state penal institutions, local jails, and workhouses for whom a treatment-centered pathway and appropriate evidence-based community supervision will result in less recidivism and more effective outcomes.
Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 483, s 1, eff. 6/30/2023.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 409, s 12, eff. 7/1/2021.
Acts 1985 (1st Ex. Sess.), ch. 3, § 3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 175
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: State v. Kendrick, 10 S.W.3d 650 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
State v. Kendrick, 10 S.W.3d 650 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-103 . The “front-end community based alternative,” as provided by statute, was designed to provide “a degree of flexibility” consistent with societal aims not previously available under the more traditional methods of correction.”
State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991). “T.C.A. § 40-36-103 proposes to “[ejstablish a policy within the state to punish selected, nonviolent felony offenders in front-end community based alternatives to incarceration, thereby reserving secure confinement facilities for violent felony offenders.”
United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 2010). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-103. The Community Corrections Act "promoted accountability of offenders to their local community; filled gaps in the local correctional system through the development of a range of sanctions and services; reduced the number of nonviolent felony offenders…”
State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489 (Tenn. 2001). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-103 (a) (1997); see State v.”
State v. Ball, 973 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “The purpose of the Community Corrections Act of 1985 was to provide an alternative means of punishment for “selected, nonviolent felony offenders in front-end community based alternatives to incarceration.”
State v. Baker, 966 S.W.2d 429 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “Specifically, Appellant asserts that because the trial court neglected to make any of the findings required by Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-103, the imposition of ten days of incarceration did not comply with the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989.”
State v. Grigsby, 957 S.W.2d 541 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “The Community Corrections Act permits trial courts to be creative in sentencing certain nonviolent felony offenders, who are either not eligible for probation or not good candidates for probation, to participate in community-based alternatives to incarceration.”
State v. Webb, 130 S.W.3d 799 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “]” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-103(1) (1997). The program offers a flexible alternative beneficial to both the defendant and society.”
State of Tennessee v. Mark Anthony McNack, 356 S.W.3d 906 (Tenn. 2011). “1992) (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-103(1)), “thereby reserving secure confinement facilities for violent felony offenders.”
State v. Wagner, 753 S.W.2d 145 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-36-103. The underlying motivation of the legislature was obviously to direct the trial courts of this state to help alleviate the overcrowded conditions in the state prison system.”
State v. Russell, 773 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1989). “The State Legislature in T.C.A. § 40-36-103 enacting the Community Corrections Act clearly set forth that the public policy of the State is to punish selected, non-violent felony offenders in front-end community based alternatives to incarceration, thereby reserving secure…”
State v. Meeks, 779 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “” T.C.A. § 40-36-103(1) (Supp.1988) [Emphasis added).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-103(1) — 43 cases
State v. Webb, 130 S.W.3d 799 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “]” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-103(1) (1997). The program offers a flexible alternative beneficial to both the defendant and society.”
State of Tennessee v. Mark Anthony McNack, 356 S.W.3d 906 (Tenn. 2011). “1992) (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-103(1)), “thereby reserving secure confinement facilities for violent felony offenders.”
State v. Meeks, 779 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “” T.C.A. § 40-36-103(1) (Supp.1988) [Emphasis added).”
State v. Estep, 854 S.W.2d 124 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).
State v. Birge, 792 S.W.2d 723 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-103(a) — 1 case
Carpenter v. State, 136 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. 2004).
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.