WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 1765

Probation and Parole - As introduced, permits a trial judge to revoke a defendant's probation for a felony or misdemeanor based on one instance of technical violation; extends the permitted terms of incarceration a court may impose for a technical violation to 90 days for a first revocation, 180 days for a second revocation, and the remainder of the sentence for a third or subsequent revocation. - Amends TCA Title 40.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Mark Pody

Allows a judge to revoke probation after a single technical violation and impose longer jail terms, plus an option to re-sentence with community-based alternatives.

Assigned to General Subcommittee of Senate Judiciary Committee
#probationandparole
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 1765

Summary of Bill SB 1765 (Session 114) — Tennessee

Purpose and intent

  • The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 40 to reform how probation and suspension of sentence can be handled when a defendant commits a “technical violation.”
  • It allows a trial judge to revoke probation for a felony or misdemeanor after a single technical violation, and it expands the maximum incarceration that can be imposed for such violations.
  • Effective date: July 1, 2026.

Key provisions and changes

Technical violations defined

  • A “technical violation” is any violation of probation terms that does not involve:
    • A new felony
    • A new Class A misdemeanor
    • A zero-tolerance violation per the corrections sanction matrix
    • Violation of a specialized probation condition
    • Absconding
    • Contacting the victim in violation of probation

Revocation authority and sentencing options (40-35-311)

  • If the judge finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, a technical violation, the judge may:
    • Temporarily revoke probation/suspension and, after an order entered on the court minutes, impose incarceration for up to:
    • 90 days (first revocation)
    • 180 days (second revocation)
    • The remainder of the sentence (third or subsequent revocation)
    • Alternatively, re-sentence the defendant for the remainder of the unexpired term to a probation sentence that includes participating in a community-based alternative to incarceration (as provided in § 40-35-104(c)(9)).
  • If the judge revokes probation after finding a new felony, new Class A misdemeanor, zero tolerance violation, violation of a specialized condition, absconding, or victim contact violation, the judge may revoke probation and order execution of the judgment as originally entered, with potential reduction by time actually served on probation (up to the time served).

Revisions to the “technical violation” definition (40-35-311(g))

  • The term “technical violation” is codified to align with the new definition above (no longer limited to a narrower set of conduct).

Who is affected

  • Defendants on probation for felony or misdemeanor offenses, currently under probation/suspension of sentence.
  • Trial judges, who gain clearer authority to revoke probation after a single technical violation and to impose longer incarceration for subsequent technical violations.
  • Local and state correctional systems may experience changes in incarceration timing and duration for violations of probation.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Effective date: July 1, 2026.
  • The act modifies existing probation revocation procedures by:
    • Allowing temporary revocation for technical violations (subject to specified incarceration limits)
    • Providing an optional path to re-sentence with community-based alternatives
    • Extending maximum incarceration durations for subsequent technical violations

Fiscal impact (summary)

  • State government: Projected net increase in incarceration expenditures estimated at about $348,214 annually (FY26-27 and onward), driven by longer potential stays for technical violations:
    • ~$32,307 for first revocation (90 days)
    • ~$47,916 for second revocation (180 days)
    • ~$267,991 for third or subsequent revocations (remainder of the sentence)
  • Local government: Potential increases in expenditures related to misdemeanor probation violations, though exact amounts are uncertain and not easily quantified.
  • Revenue impact: Expected to be not significant; collection of court costs/fees is unlikely to change substantially.

Legislative history and status

  • Introduced early 2026; assigned to Senate Judiciary Committee, with earlier Finance/Review considerations noted.
  • Co-sponsor: Senator Mark Pody.
  • The bill is part of the House counterpart HB 2467 (Lynn).

If you’d like, I can provide a plain-language example scenario illustrating how the new provisions would apply in a felony versus a misdemeanor case, or compare the current law to the proposed changes side-by-side.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.