Hicks plea (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

Hicks plea in Tennessee

9 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2026 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Hicks v. Stategreen
tenn · 1997 · cited in 5 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2011–2020
2 sentences

2020Regarding Petitioner’s claim that trial counsel did not explain what a “Hicks plea” was to her, we note that the judgment of conviction states that Petitioner’s plea was “pursuant to State v. Hicks 2nd degree murder out of range” which appears to be a reference to the Tennessee Supreme Court’s opinion in Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. 1997) (holding that a knowing and voluntary plea waives any irregularity with regard to offender classification and release eligibility).

2014The judgment form indicates that Petitioner entered a “Hicks plea.” Our Supreme Court has held that “a knowing and voluntary guilty plea waives any irregularity as to offender classification or release eligibility.” Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tenn. 1997).

25
David CANTRELL v. Joe EASTERLING, Wardenyellow
tenn · 2011 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2011–2014
2 sentences

2014In the event a defendant enters into a plea-bargain, he or she waives any subsequent complaint about offender classification and length of sentence, “so long as [the sentence] does not exceed the maximum punishment authorized for the plea offense.” Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Hicks, 945 S.W.2d at 707 ); see also Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 451-52 (Tenn. 2011); McConnell v. State, 12 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tenn. 2000) (determining that if a sentence was within the statutory minimum and maximum sentences for a particular sentencing range, then an appellate cou

2011In the event a defendant enters into a plea-bargain, he or she waives any subsequent complaint about offender classification and length of sentence, “so long as [the sentence] does not exceed the maximum punishment authorized for the plea offense.” Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 707 (Tenn.1997)); see also Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 451-52 (Tenn. 2011); McConnell v. State, 12 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tenn. 2000) (determining that if a sentence was within the statutory minimum and maximum sentences for a particular sentencing range,

22
McConnell v. Stategreen
tenn · 2000 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2011–2014
2 sentences

2014In the event a defendant enters into a plea-bargain, he or she waives any subsequent complaint about offender classification and length of sentence, “so long as [the sentence] does not exceed the maximum punishment authorized for the plea offense.” Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Hicks, 945 S.W.2d at 707 ); see also Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 451-52 (Tenn. 2011); McConnell v. State, 12 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tenn. 2000) (determining that if a sentence was within the statutory minimum and maximum sentences for a particular sentencing range, then an appellate cou

2011In the event a defendant enters into a plea-bargain, he or she waives any subsequent complaint about offender classification and length of sentence, “so long as [the sentence] does not exceed the maximum punishment authorized for the plea offense.” Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 707 (Tenn.1997)); see also Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 451-52 (Tenn. 2011); McConnell v. State, 12 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tenn. 2000) (determining that if a sentence was within the statutory minimum and maximum sentences for a particular sentencing range,

22
Hoover v. Stategreen
tenn · 2007 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2011–2014
2 sentences

2014In the event a defendant enters into a plea-bargain, he or she waives any subsequent complaint about offender classification and length of sentence, “so long as [the sentence] does not exceed the maximum punishment authorized for the plea offense.” Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Hicks, 945 S.W.2d at 707 ); see also Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 451-52 (Tenn. 2011); McConnell v. State, 12 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tenn. 2000) (determining that if a sentence was within the statutory minimum and maximum sentences for a particular sentencing range, then an appellate cou

2011In the event a defendant enters into a plea-bargain, he or she waives any subsequent complaint about offender classification and length of sentence, “so long as [the sentence] does not exceed the maximum punishment authorized for the plea offense.” Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 707 (Tenn.1997)); see also Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 451-52 (Tenn. 2011); McConnell v. State, 12 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tenn. 2000) (determining that if a sentence was within the statutory minimum and maximum sentences for a particular sentencing range,

22
Michelle RYE Et Al. v. WOMEN’S CARE CENTER OF MEMPHIS, MPLLC Et Al.green
tenn · 2015 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (2025); Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015).

11
Rowe v. Stategreen
tenn · 1973 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998See Rowe v. State, 498 S.W.2d 322 (Tenn. 1973) (writ of error coram nobis generally does not lie to attack trial testimony, including on grounds of perjury). 5 Hicks's motion, though not presented as a post conviction petition, was filed within the applicable statute of limitations for post conviction actions.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Hicks v. State green
tenncrimapp · 1998
2 sentences

2020However, it is not clear from the record whether it is a reference to that case or this court’s opinion in Hicks v. State, 983 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that a defendant may knowingly and voluntarily enter a “best interests” plea while maintaining his innocence).

2019However, it is not clear whether that was a reference to this Court’s opinion in Hicks v. State, 983 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that a defendant may knowingly and voluntarily enter a “best interests” plea while maintaining his innocence) or the Tennessee Supreme Court’s opinion in Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. 1997) (holding that a knowing and voluntary plea waives any irregularity with regard to offender classification and release eligibility).

22019–2020
State v. Downey green
tenn · 1997
2 sentences

2018In addition to our analysis of the Hicks factors, we also recognize that this checkpoint was not “established and operated in accordance with predetermined operational guidelines[.]” Downey, 945 S.W.2d at 104 .

2018In addition to our analysis of the Hicks factors, we also recognize that this checkpoint was not “established and operated in accordance with predetermined operational guidelines[.]” Downey, 945 S.W.2d at 104 .

22011–2018

Where else courts name it

MD 32 (1982–2026) TX 23 (1983–2025) OH 10 (1994–2026) TN 9 (1998–2026) PA 8 (1984–2026) IN 7 (1992–2020) WI 7 (1977–2022) AL 6 (1991–2014) CA 4 (1983–2024) WY 4 (1978–2026) NM 4 (2012–2012) IA 3 (1978–2021) GA 3 (1997–2021) AR 3 (1991–2017) IL 3 (1993–2020) MN 2 (2000–2001) FL 2 (2006–2008) NC 2 (1982–1986) NE 2 (1992–2017) DC 2 (1995–1999) MO 2 (1976–2017)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check