AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 40-35-302, relative to sentencing requirements for certain misdemeanor offenders.
This bill amends Tennessee’s misdemeanor sentencing law to require, as an additional condition of sentence, that a person convicted of a Class A misdemeanor in general sessions court complete a cognitive behavioral training course unless the court finds that requirement inappropriate. If the sentence includes jail time, the course must be completed after incarceration ends. The offender is responsible for paying for the course, and counties are expressly not required to cover the cost, even for indigent defendants.
The bill also sets standards for any qualifying course. It must be available online and on mobile devices, offered in languages other than English, cost no more than $100 with payment options, and include some human interaction such as grading, feedback, or guidance. Online providers must already serve a federal, state, or local entity, have documented effectiveness, offer telephone support at least five days per week, provide human facilitators, issue completion certificates within 72 hours, and supply informational or referral materials to counties at no cost. Counties or municipalities may offer an in-person program, but if they do, they must also offer an online option meeting the same requirements.
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-35-302 by adding a new sentencing condition for Class A misdemeanor offenders in general sessions court. It creates a new court-enforceable requirement tied to cognitive behavioral training, shifts the cost of compliance to the offender, and authorizes contempt sanctions of up to 10 days’ confinement for willful noncompliance. The act applies only to offenses committed on or after July 1, 2025, and it affects courts, counties, municipalities, and private or public providers of cognitive behavioral training services.
The available voting history suggests the bill had generally favorable support, though not unanimous. It advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 7-1 vote and later passed the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee by a 6-3 vote, indicating that most members supported the approach but some had reservations. No committee transcript is available, so the record reflects procedural support more than detailed debate.
The main points of contention appear to be the mandatory nature of the training requirement and who bears the cost. The bill requires offenders to pay up to $100 for the course and explicitly states that counties are not responsible for payment, even for indigent defendants, which could raise access and fairness concerns. Another likely issue is the use of contempt and possible jail time for failure to complete the course or provide proof, as well as whether the court should have discretion to waive the requirement when inappropriate. The committee votes show some opposition, but no transcript is available to identify specific arguments or sponsors of the objections.