Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-104 (2026)
Issuance of writ without application
✓ current as of May 2026
Whenever any court or judge, authorized to grant this writ, has evidence, from a judicial proceeding, that any person within the jurisdiction of such court or officer is illegally imprisoned or restrained of liberty, it is the duty of such court or judge to issue, or cause to be issued, the writ as aforementioned, although no application be made therefor.
Code 1858, § 3730; Shan., § 5510; Code 1932, § 9680; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1804.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Cox v. State, 53 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
Cox v. State, 53 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 29-21-104, -107(a) (2000) (using the concept of illegal restraint as the object of a writ of habeas corpus); Archer, 851 S.”
Carroll v. Raney, 868 S.W.2d 721 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-21-101. Upon a judicial determination that the petitioner is illegally restrained, it is the duty of the court to grant the writ directing release.”
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Tyrone Flanigan (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-21-104 , -105 (2024).”
State of Tennessee v. Shaun Lamont Hereford (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-104 (2000). However, in the present case, the record before us belies the petitioner’s contention that his June 21, 1994 plea petition did not include charges that became the bases for convictions and sentences listed in the TOMIS letter.”
Gary Wayne Calhoun v. David Mills, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-104 . Petitioner argues that this Court’s order on the petition to rehear in Calhoun I determined conclusively that the sentences from his Sullivan County convictions in case numbers 21,478 and 22,532 were to be served concurrently and that the sentences…”
Terry Penny v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-104 (2000); Cox v.”
Quinton Cage v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “T.C.A. § 29-21-104. To begin, we agree that the habeas corpus court properly treated the document filed by Petitioner as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.”
Andre L. Mayfield v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-104 . Here, the habeas corpus court properly treated the Petitioner’s motion as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.”
Gene Shelton Rucker v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-104 . Under Tennessee law, the “grounds upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted are very narrow.”
Paul K. Flannigan v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-104 provides that when a court with power to issue the writ “has evidence, from a judicial proceeding, that any person within the jurisdiction of such court .”
State of Tennessee v. Timmy Herndon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-21-104 , -107(a); -2- Stephenson v.”
Reiko Nolen v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “Despite these procedural errors, we note that the trial court has the duty to grant a writ of habeas corpus sua sponte when it “has evidence, from a judicial proceeding, that any person within the jurisdiction of such court or officer is illegally imprisoned or restrained of his…”
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.