Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-102 (2026)
Federal prisoners
✓ current as of May 2026
Persons committed or detained by virtue of process issued by a court of the United States, or a judge thereof, in cases where such judges or courts have exclusive jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, or have acquired exclusive jurisdiction by the commencement of suits in such courts, are not entitled to the benefits of this writ.
Code 1858, § 3721; Shan., § 5501; Code 1932, § 9672; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1802.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 126
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358 (Tenn. 2007).
Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358 (Tenn. 2007). “The State argues that because the petitioner is “detained by virtue of process issued by a court of the United States,” the terms of the statute prohibit a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Tennessee. This contention, however, overlooks the fact that the petitioner is also…”
Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16 (Tenn. 2004). “Finally, in a footnote, the majority indicated that if the defendant is presently in federal custody, as he alleged in another case attacking his 1986 conviction, then he is barred from obtaining habeas corpus relief by Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-102, which provides…”
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011). “2010) (“Any person imprisoned or restrained of liberty, under any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in subsection (b) and in cases specified in § 29-21-102, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and restraint.”
State v. Henretta, 325 S.W.3d 112 (Tenn. 2010). “Henretta argues in the alternative that if he was transferred from Leavenworth pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, the writ was void and without effect because 1) the trial court did not have constitutional or statutory authority to issue a writ against an…”
Michael Dwayne EDWARDS v. STATE of Tennessee, Wayne Brandon, Warden, 269 S.W.3d 915 (Tenn. 2008). “The grounds for habeas corpus relief in Tennessee appear to be broad: “Any person imprisoned or restrained of liberty, under any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in § 29-21-102, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment…”
Terrance Lavar Davis v. State of Tennessee, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2010). “Initially, “[a]ny person imprisoned or restrained of liberty, under any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in subsection (b) and in cases specified in § 29-21-102, may prosecute a writ of ha-beas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and restraint.”
Tucker v. Morrow, 335 S.W.3d 116 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-101 provides that “[a]ny person imprisoned or restrained of liberty, under any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in § 29-21-102, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and…”
Lewis v. Metro. Gen. Sessions Court for Nashville, 949 S.W.2d 696 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-21-102; see Putt v. State, 2 Tenn.”
Summers v. Fortner, 267 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-101 provides that “[a]ny person imprisoned or restrained of liberty, under any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in § 29-21-102, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and…”
Herbert N. Jackson v. Tony Parker, Warden, 366 S.W.3d 186 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-101 provides that “[a]ny person imprisoned or restrained of liberty, under any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in § 29-21-102, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and…”
Leonard v. Crim. Court of Davidson Cnty., 804 S.W.2d 891 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). “§ 29-21-101 sets out the subject matter amenable to our writ and provides: Any person imprisoned or restrained of his liberty, under any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in § 29-21-102, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such…”
Jerry Faulkner a/k/a Joseph Faulkner v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-102 (2000). In our view, this limitation upon access to a Tennessee writ of habeas corpus implicates the primary result and benefit of the writ – the command to bring the body of the petitioner before the court.”
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.