Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2016 0 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2009This court has held that “[t]he proper remedy when an electronic recording of a preliminary hearing is lost or unavailable would be to request the trial court to dismiss the indictment and remand to the General Sessions Court for a second preliminary hearing.” State v. Carter, 970 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Tenn. Crim. 2003However, where the error is not harmless, the proper remedy is for the trial court “to dismiss the indictment and remand to the General Sessions Court for a second preliminary hearing.” Carter, 970 S.W.2d at 512 . | 3 | 5 |
State v. Gravesgreen2 sentences2009App. 1997); see also State v. Graves, 126 S.W.3d 873, 878 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Robert C. 2006App., at Nashville, Sept. 15, 2000) and State v. Graves, 126 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2003), in support of his claim that the trial court 1 Rule 5.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure was amended effective July 1, 2006, after the date of the appellant’s preliminary hearing herein. -4- erred in not dismissing the indictment and remanding the matter for a second preliminary hearing. | 1 | 2 |
Vaughn v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Petitioner has failed to demonstrate how counsel‟s conduct in failing to request a second preliminary hearing, to which he was not entitled, fell below an objective standard of “„reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.‟” Finch, 226 S.W.3d at 315 (quoting Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106, 116 (Tenn. 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mixongreen1 sentence2015A writ of error coram nobis is an “extraordinary procedural remedy,” filling only a “slight gap into which few cases fall.” State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661, 672 (Tenn. 3 At the same time the Petitioner filed his second Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, he also filed a second motion to reopen his post-conviction proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Prestongreen1 sentence1998Preston, 759 S.W.2d at 651 (opinion on petition to rehear). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Finch v. State
green
1 sentence2016Petitioner has failed to demonstrate how counsel‟s conduct in failing to request a second preliminary hearing, to which he was not entitled, fell below an objective standard of “„reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.‟” Finch, 226 S.W.3d at 315 (quoting Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106, 116 (Tenn. 2006)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.