Tenn. Code Ann. » Tenn. Code / Title 27 / Chapter 7
Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-7-103 (2026)

Petition - Supersedeas

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The writ of error coram nobis may be had within one (1) year after the judgment becomes final by petition presented to the judge at chambers or in open court, who may order it to operate as a supersedeas or not.

Code 1858, § 3111; Shan., § 4839; Code 1932, § 8972; Acts 1967, ch. 386, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 27-703.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 297 cases (56 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Ricky Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587 (Tenn. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ricky Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587 (Tenn. 2003). · cites it 6× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-7-103 (2000). This Court has consistently recognized, however, that principles of due process may toll the writ of error coram nobis statute of limitations or the post-conviction statute of limitations where the petitioner’s liberty interest in raising a…”
Stephen Bernard Wlodarz v. State of Tennessee, 361 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2012). · cites it 7× “at *4, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the evidence was not “newly discovered” because the Petitioner “was well- 4 Generally, petitions for a writ of error coram nobis must be filed within one year after the challenged judgment becomes final, Tenn.”
Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 4× “1999) (citing Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-7-103). The decision to grant or deny a petition for writ of error coram nobis rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Cyrus Deville Wilson v. State of Tennessee, 367 S.W.3d 229 (Tenn. 2012). · cites it 4× “Petitioner argues that the State waived the statute of limitations defense by not raising it in the trial court and that the trial court properly tolled the statute of limitations.”
Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995). · cites it 4× “The State concedes that it did not specifically cite § 27-7-103 in its motion to dismiss. However, the State also points out that it did cite § 40-30-102 — the statute of limitations applicable to post-conviction claims.”
Freshwater v. State, 160 S.W.3d 548 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-7-103; State v. Mixon, 983 S.”
State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 2× “The statute currently provides that “[t]he writ of error coram nobis may be had within one (1) year after the judgment becomes final-” Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-7-103 (1980 Repl.). Relying upon a footnote in Teague v.”
State v. Hart, 911 S.W.2d 371 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-7-103. 3 . In Hicks v.”
State v. Ratliff, 71 S.W.3d 291 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “” See Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-7-103 (1997); State v.”
Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 915 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “” T.C.A. § 27-7-103. 2 *921 A petition for the writ of error coram nobis in a criminal case, which seeks relief on the ground of subsequently or newly discovered evidence, should recite: (a) the grounds and the nature of the newly discovered evidence, Crawford v.”
Ricky HARRIS v. STATE of Tennessee, 301 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 36× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-7-103 . It is subject to being summarily dismissed if it does not show on its face that it has been timely filed.”
Newsome v. State, 995 S.W.2d 129 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-7-103 (1980); Hicks v.”
Show all 297 citing cases →
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.