Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106 (2026)
Eligible offenders
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a)
- (1) An offender who meets all of the following minimum criteria shall be considered eligible for punishment in the community under this chapter:
- (A) Persons who, without this option, would be incarcerated in a correctional institution;
- (B) Persons who are convicted of property-related or drug- or alcohol-related felony offenses or other felony offenses not involving crimes against the person as provided in title 39, chapter 13, parts 1-5;
- (C) Persons who are convicted of nonviolent felony offenses;
- (D) Persons who are convicted of felony offenses in which the use or possession of a weapon was not involved;
- (E) Persons who do not demonstrate a present or past pattern of behavior indicating violence;
- (F) Persons who do not demonstrate a pattern of committing violent offenses;
- (G) Persons who have not been convicted of a sexual offense under title 39, chapter 13, part 5;
- (H) Persons who do not meet the definition of a sexual offender or violent sexual offender under § 40-39-202; and
- (I) Persons who are not required to serve a sentence of community supervision for life under § 39-13-524.
- (2) Persons who are sentenced to incarceration or are on escape at the time of consideration will not be eligible for punishment in the community.
- (1) An offender who meets all of the following minimum criteria shall be considered eligible for punishment in the community under this chapter:
- (b) Offenders shall not be excluded from the program on the basis of prior convictions for nonviolent felony offenses, but may, at the discretion of the court and local community corrections advisory board, be excluded on the basis of prior convictions for felony offenses that would not meet the eligibility criteria provided in subsection (a).
- (c) Felony offenders not otherwise eligible under subsection (a), and who would be usually considered unfit for probation due to histories of chronic alcohol or drug abuse or mental health problems, but whose special needs are treatable and could be served best in the community rather than in a correctional institution, may be considered eligible for punishment in the community under this chapter.
- (d) The eligibility criteria established in this section shall be interpreted as minimum state standards, guiding the determination of eligibility of offenders under this chapter.
- (e)
- (1) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the court is authorized to sentence an eligible defendant as defined in this section to any appropriate community-based alternative to incarceration provided in accordance with the terms of this chapter, and under the additional terms and conditions as the court may prescribe, in lieu of incarceration in a state penal institution or local jail or workhouse.
- (2) In sentencing an eligible defendant to any community-based alternative to incarceration, the court shall possess the power to set the duration of the sentence for the offense committed at any period of time up to the maximum sentence within the appropriate sentence range and shall retain the authority to alter or amend at any time the length, terms or conditions of the sentence imposed.
- (3)
- (A) The court also has the power to terminate an offender from the program and to place the offender on supervised or unsupervised probation upon a showing that the offender did abide by the conditions imposed on the original sentence and that the offender's placement on probation presents no substantial risk to public safety. This authority of the court extends to offenders not originally eligible for probation after service of at least one (1) year.
- (B) Failure to comply with the terms of probation subjects the offender to revocation proceedings conducted by the court pursuant to § 40-35-311. If incarcerated, the offender receives credit only for actual time served in the community-based alternative program.
- (4) The court shall also possess the power to revoke the sentence imposed at any time due to the conduct of the defendant or the termination or modification of the program to which the defendant has been sentenced, and the court may resentence the defendant to any appropriate sentencing alternative, including incarceration, for any period of time up to the maximum sentence provided for the offense committed, less any time actually served in any community-based alternative to incarceration. The resentencing shall be conducted in compliance with § 40-35-210.
- (5) The district attorney general, victim, defense attorney and probation and parole officer should be consulted regarding potential referrals to the program; however, the court shall have the final decision.
- (6) Upon a judge sentencing a person to be supervised under this chapter by an organization under contract with a governmental entity and governed by this chapter, the department of correction or another state agency shall not penalize, financially or otherwise, the organization for providing such service.
- (f) Nothing in this section shall prevent a court from permitting an eligible defendant to participate in a community-based alternative to incarceration as a condition of probation in conjunction with a suspended sentence, split confinement or periodic confinement as provided in chapter 35 of this title.
Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 483, s 2, eff. 6/30/2023.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 409, s 11, eff. 7/1/2021.
Acts 1985 (1st Ex. Sess.), ch. 3, § 6; 1993, ch. 221, § 2; 1996, ch. 675, § 38; 1998, ch. 1049, § 48; 2005, ch. 353, § 17.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 699
cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: State v. Johnson, 342 S.W.3d 520 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009).
State v. Johnson, 342 S.W.3d 520 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106 provides, in pertinent part: (a)(1) An offender who meets all of the following minimum criteria shall be considered eligible for punishment in the community under the provisions of this chapter: (A) Persons who, without this option,…”
State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “Where, as here, a defendant contends he should have been sentenced pursuant to the Community Corrections Act, this Court must also consider the eligibility criteria of the Act, T.C.A. § 40-36-106(a) as well as the report of the entity administering the Community Corrections Act…”
State v. Grigsby, 957 S.W.2d 541 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “Additionally, since the appellant contends that he should have been sentenced pursuant to the Community Corrections Act, this court must also consider the eligibility standards set forth in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106 (1994 Supp.) and the report of the agency which administers…”
State v. Pettus, 986 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn. 1999). “” In the same vein, Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106© states, in pertinent part, that a court may permit “an eligible defendant to participate in a community-based alternative to incarceration as a condition of probation.”
State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489 (Tenn. 2001). “§ 40-36-106(e)(2) (1997 & Supp.2000) (In imposing a community corrections sentence, the trial court “shall retain the authority to alter or amend at any time the length, terms or conditions of the sentence imposed.”
Carpenter v. State, 136 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. 2004). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106 (e)(4) (2003).”
State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “Turning to the Community Corrections Act, eligibility for sentencing under its provisions is governed by Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a) and (c). There is no dispute that the appellant is ineligible for community corrections sentencing under subsection (a).”
Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(l)(C) (2003).”
State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “When the sentencing alternative provided by the Community Correction Act is at issue, this Court must consider the eligibility standards in T.C.A. § 40-36-106(a) and the report of the agency which administers the county’s program, as well.”
State of Tennessee v. Mark Anthony McNack, 356 S.W.3d 906 (Tenn. 2011). “The eligibility criteria for the community corrections program is set out in Tennessee Code *910 Annotated section 40-36-106 and provides as follows: (a)(1) An offender who meets all of the following minimum criteria shall be considered eligible for punishment in the community…”
State v. Byrd, 861 S.W.2d 377 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106 (e)(l) (1990 Repl.”
State v. Franklin, 308 S.W.3d 799 (Tenn. 2010). “Additionally, Defendant fails to meet the eligibility criteria of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106(a) (2006) because he was convicted of a crime against Poison’s person.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(2) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Betty W. Norman (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(3)(B) — 4 cases
State of Tennessee v. Siron S. Shields (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy L. Gladden, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Williamson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Deshawn Gail Leiger (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(4) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Joe Allen Brown (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
State v. Ervin (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(6) — 4 cases
State of Tennessee v. Tavares Duone Braden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. John Eric Garvin, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Tommy L. Beaty a/k/a Jacky Wayne Beaty (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Melvin M. Melson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(B) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Noah Keith Tipton - dissenting (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(C) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. James Edward Church, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
State of Tennessee v. Brandon L. Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
State of Tennessee v. Sherry L. Williams (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a) — 70 cases
State v. Johnson, 342 S.W.3d 520 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106 provides, in pertinent part: (a)(1) An offender who meets all of the following minimum criteria shall be considered eligible for punishment in the community under the provisions of this chapter: (A) Persons who, without this option,…”
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991).
State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “Turning to the Community Corrections Act, eligibility for sentencing under its provisions is governed by Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a) and (c). There is no dispute that the appellant is ineligible for community corrections sentencing under subsection (a).”
State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “When the sentencing alternative provided by the Community Correction Act is at issue, this Court must consider the eligibility standards in T.C.A. § 40-36-106(a) and the report of the agency which administers the county’s program, as well.”
State v. Grigsby, 957 S.W.2d 541 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “Additionally, since the appellant contends that he should have been sentenced pursuant to the Community Corrections Act, this court must also consider the eligibility standards set forth in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106 (1994 Supp.) and the report of the agency which administers…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(1) — 54 cases
State v. Nunley, 22 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
State of Tennessee v. Noah Keith Tipton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Gardner Ford (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Lloyd Hill (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
State of Tennessee v. David Stewart Cowles, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(1)(A) — 37 cases
State of Tennessee v. Wayne Shelton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
State of Tennessee v. Michael Glenn Holt (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Noah Keith Tipton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Colston (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. April Nicole Cromwell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(1)(B) — 14 cases
State of Tennessee v. Adarion C. Morris (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
State of Tennessee v. Bryan Keith Bradford (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
State of Tennessee v. Charles Bradford Stewart (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Tiffany Sanders McNeal (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Denver L. Brown, III (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(1)(B)(2006) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Sidney B. Ray (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(1)(C) — 4 cases
State of Tennessee v. Noah Keith Tipton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. Michael Stephen Cox (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
James William Parsons, Jr. v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
State of Tennessee v. Rita Cates (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(1)(D) — 8 cases
State of Tennessee v. Tarell D. Lewis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Gardner Ford (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
State of Tennessee v. Noah Keith Tipton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. Wayne Shelton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
Shamain Johnson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(1)(E) — 5 cases
State of Tennessee v. Noah Keith Tipton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Lynn Thornton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
State of Tennessee v. William Jason Harris (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. Darius L. Brown (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Richard Yarbrough (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(1)(F) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Noah Keith Tipton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(2) — 19 cases
State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “Where, as here, a defendant contends he should have been sentenced pursuant to the Community Corrections Act, this Court must also consider the eligibility criteria of the Act, T.C.A. § 40-36-106(a) as well as the report of the entity administering the Community Corrections Act…”
State v. Anderson, 985 S.W.2d 9 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State v. Butler, 880 S.W.2d 395 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
State v. Batey, 35 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).
State v. Cowan, 40 S.W.3d 85 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(2)(5)(6) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Richard L. Thompson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(3) — 5 cases
State v. Meeks, 779 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
State v. Birge, 792 S.W.2d 723 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).
State of Tennessee v. Brian Charles LaDue (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
State v. Vernita Cox (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Whitlock (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(4) — 5 cases
State v. Grandberry, 803 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).
Brown v. Hamilton Cnty., 126 S.W.3d 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Meeks, 779 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
State v. Johnny Tillery (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Whitlock (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(6) — 4 cases
State v. Clifton Epps (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State of Tennessee v. Shawn Martin Holdaway (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002).
State of Tennessee v. Felicia Joann Cannon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002).
State v. Russell Barnes (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(7) — 1 case
State v. Timothy Redd (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(B) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Marquis Devann Churchwell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(l) — 2 cases
State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “Where, as here, a defendant contends he should have been sentenced pursuant to the Community Corrections Act, this Court must also consider the eligibility criteria of the Act, T.C.A. § 40-36-106(a) as well as the report of the entity administering the Community Corrections Act…”
State v. Nunley, 22 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(l)(C) — 1 case
Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(l)(C) (2003).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(b) — 2 cases
State v. Wagner, 753 S.W.2d 145 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
State of Tennessee v. Artez L. Moreis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(c) — 115 cases
State v. Johnson, 342 S.W.3d 520 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106 provides, in pertinent part: (a)(1) An offender who meets all of the following minimum criteria shall be considered eligible for punishment in the community under the provisions of this chapter: (A) Persons who, without this option,…”
Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(l)(C) (2003).”
State v. Grigsby, 957 S.W.2d 541 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “Additionally, since the appellant contends that he should have been sentenced pursuant to the Community Corrections Act, this court must also consider the eligibility standards set forth in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106 (1994 Supp.) and the report of the agency which administers…”
State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “Where, as here, a defendant contends he should have been sentenced pursuant to the Community Corrections Act, this Court must also consider the eligibility criteria of the Act, T.C.A. § 40-36-106(a) as well as the report of the entity administering the Community Corrections Act…”
State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “Turning to the Community Corrections Act, eligibility for sentencing under its provisions is governed by Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a) and (c). There is no dispute that the appellant is ineligible for community corrections sentencing under subsection (a).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(d) — 23 cases
State v. Grigsby, 957 S.W.2d 541 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “Additionally, since the appellant contends that he should have been sentenced pursuant to the Community Corrections Act, this court must also consider the eligibility standards set forth in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106 (1994 Supp.) and the report of the agency which administers…”
State of Tennessee v. Michael Glenn Holt (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Ginger Ilene Hudson Stump (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Leston Parker (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
State of Tennessee v. Robert Edward Williams, III (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(d)(4) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Adarion C. Morris (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e) — 8 cases
State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “Turning to the Community Corrections Act, eligibility for sentencing under its provisions is governed by Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a) and (c). There is no dispute that the appellant is ineligible for community corrections sentencing under subsection (a).”
Herbert N. Jackson v. Tony Parker, Warden, 366 S.W.3d 186 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Roderick Chapman (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
State of Tennessee v. Alfred R. Mason (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
State of Tennessee v. Barbara Nicole Napper (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(1) — 9 cases
State v. Pettus, 986 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn. 1999). “” In the same vein, Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106© states, in pertinent part, that a court may permit “an eligible defendant to participate in a community-based alternative to incarceration as a condition of probation.”
State v. Byrd, 861 S.W.2d 377 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106 (e)(l) (1990 Repl.”
State v. Kendrick, 10 S.W.3d 650 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
State v. Matheny, 884 S.W.2d 480 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
State v. Johnson (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(2) — 22 cases
State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489 (Tenn. 2001). “§ 40-36-106(e)(2) (1997 & Supp.2000) (In imposing a community corrections sentence, the trial court “shall retain the authority to alter or amend at any time the length, terms or conditions of the sentence imposed.”
State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “Where, as here, a defendant contends he should have been sentenced pursuant to the Community Corrections Act, this Court must also consider the eligibility criteria of the Act, T.C.A. § 40-36-106(a) as well as the report of the entity administering the Community Corrections Act…”
State v. Moore, 814 S.W.2d 381 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
State v. Griffith, 787 S.W.2d 340 (Tenn. 1990).
Carpenter v. State, 136 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. 2004). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106 (e)(4) (2003).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(3) — 25 cases
State v. Griffith, 787 S.W.2d 340 (Tenn. 1990).
Bentley v. State, 938 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State v. Bowling, 958 S.W.2d 362 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State v. Martin, 146 S.W.3d 64 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
State v. Patty, 922 S.W.2d 102 (Tenn. 1995).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(3)(A) — 2 cases
State v. Pettus, 986 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn. 1999). “” In the same vein, Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106© states, in pertinent part, that a court may permit “an eligible defendant to participate in a community-based alternative to incarceration as a condition of probation.”
Kelvin Wade Cloyd v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(3)(B) — 21 cases
State of Tennessee v. Mark Anthony McNack, 356 S.W.3d 906 (Tenn. 2011). “The eligibility criteria for the community corrections program is set out in Tennessee Code *910 Annotated section 40-36-106 and provides as follows: (a)(1) An offender who meets all of the following minimum criteria shall be considered eligible for punishment in the community…”
Herbert N. Jackson v. Tony Parker, Warden, 366 S.W.3d 186 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Mark Alan Hager (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Lacy Franklin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
State of Tennessee v. Alfred R. Mason (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(4) — 98 cases
State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489 (Tenn. 2001). “§ 40-36-106(e)(2) (1997 & Supp.2000) (In imposing a community corrections sentence, the trial court “shall retain the authority to alter or amend at any time the length, terms or conditions of the sentence imposed.”
State v. Pettus, 986 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn. 1999). “” In the same vein, Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-36-106© states, in pertinent part, that a court may permit “an eligible defendant to participate in a community-based alternative to incarceration as a condition of probation.”
Carpenter v. State, 136 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. 2004). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106 (e)(4) (2003).”
State v. Patty, 922 S.W.2d 102 (Tenn. 1995).
State of Tennessee v. Mark Anthony McNack, 356 S.W.3d 906 (Tenn. 2011). “The eligibility criteria for the community corrections program is set out in Tennessee Code *910 Annotated section 40-36-106 and provides as follows: (a)(1) An offender who meets all of the following minimum criteria shall be considered eligible for punishment in the community…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(l) — 5 cases
State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “Where, as here, a defendant contends he should have been sentenced pursuant to the Community Corrections Act, this Court must also consider the eligibility criteria of the Act, T.C.A. § 40-36-106(a) as well as the report of the entity administering the Community Corrections Act…”
Carpenter v. State, 136 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. 2004). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106 (e)(4) (2003).”
Bentley v. State, 938 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State v. Huff, 760 S.W.2d 633 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
State v. Matheny, 884 S.W.2d 480 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(f) — 14 cases
State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “When the sentencing alternative provided by the Community Correction Act is at issue, this Court must consider the eligibility standards in T.C.A. § 40-36-106(a) and the report of the agency which administers the county’s program, as well.”
State v. Hartley, 818 S.W.2d 370 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
State v. Byrd, 861 S.W.2d 377 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106 (e)(l) (1990 Repl.”
State v. Bowling, 958 S.W.2d 362 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State v. Kear, 809 S.W.2d 197 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
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.