Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (2024)
Appeal and review of death sentence
✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
- (a)
- (1) Whenever the death penalty is imposed for an offense and when the judgment has become final in the trial court, the Tennessee supreme court shall automatically review the conviction and the sentence of death. Upon the conviction becoming final in the trial court, the clerk shall docket the case in the supreme court and the case shall proceed in accordance with the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.
- (2) If the defendant has been convicted of an offense and sentenced to death, the record as to guilt and sentence shall be expeditiously filed with the Tennessee supreme court within the time limit provision of Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rules 24 and 25. If the defendant has been convicted of other offenses than the offense that is punishable by death at the same trial where a death sentence is imposed, the Tennessee supreme court has authority to review by direct appeal the other crimes, if appealed by the defendant with the conviction for an offense that is punishable by death and sentence of death.
- (b) The appeal of the conviction for an offense that is punishable by death and the review of the sentence of death has priority over all other cases and shall be heard according to the rules promulgated by the Tennessee supreme court. The Tennessee supreme court shall first consider any errors assigned and then the court shall review the sentence of death.
- (c)
- (1) In reviewing a sentence of death, the Tennessee supreme court shall determine whether:
- (A) The sentence of death was imposed in any arbitrary fashion;
- (B) The evidence supports the jury's finding of statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances;
- (C) The evidence supports the jury's finding that the aggravating circumstance or circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances; and
- (D) The sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the nature of the crime and the defendant.
- (2) The Tennessee supreme court may promulgate rules as it deems appropriate to establish such procedures as are necessary to enable it to properly review the death sentence.
- (1) In reviewing a sentence of death, the Tennessee supreme court shall determine whether:
- (d) In addition to its other authority regarding correction of errors, the Tennessee supreme court, in reviewing a death sentence, is authorized to:
- (1) Affirm the sentence of death; or
- (2) Modify the punishment to imprisonment for life without possibility of parole or, if applicable, imprisonment for life.
- (e) In the event that any provision of §§ 39-13-202 - 39-13-205 or this section, or the application of the sections, to any individual or circumstance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional so as to permanently preclude a sentence of death as to that individual, the court having jurisdiction over the individual previously sentenced to death shall cause the individual to be brought before the proper court, which shall, following a sentencing hearing conducted in accordance with § 39-13-207, sentence the person to imprisonment for life without possibility of parole or, if applicable, imprisonment for life.
Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 951,s 22, eff. 7/1/2024.
Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 951,s 21, eff. 7/1/2024.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1062, s 8, eff. on the thirtieth day following the occurrence of either : (1) The issuance of the judgment in a decision of the United States supreme court overruling, in whole or in relevant part, Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008); or (2) The ratification of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States approving the use of the death penalty as punishment for the conviction of an offense involving the infliction of severe physical and mental pain and suffering upon the victim with the intent to perpetrate first degree murder that does not result in the death of the victim.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 234
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed 1 “Prior to the setting of oral argument, the Court shall review the record and briefs and consider all errors assigned.”
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997). “Thereafter, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1) (1996 Supp.”
State of Tennessee v. Sedrick Clayton, 535 S.W.3d 829 (Tenn. 2017). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed 1 We heard oral argument in this case on June 1, 2017, at Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee, as part of this Court’s S.”
State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002). “§ 39-13-206(c)(1) and the principles adopted in pri- or decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court, we have considered the entire record in this cause and find that the sentences of death were not imposed in any arbitrary fashion, that the evidence supports, as previously…”
State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646 (Tenn. 2006). “Upon automatic appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 (2003), this Court entered an order specifying seven issues for oral argument, [1] including (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to…”
State of Tennessee v. Howard Hawk Willis, 496 S.W.3d 653 (Tenn. 2016). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1) (2014); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed HOLLY KIRBY, J.”
State of Tennessee v. Jessie Dotson, 450 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed C ORNELIA A.”
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2017). “The case was thereafter automatically docketed in this Court for review, as required by statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1), (c)(1).”
State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2004). “As to the sentences of death, however, I continue to adhere to my views that the comparative proportionality review protocol currently embraced by the *69 majority is inadequate to shield defendants from the arbitrary and disproportionate imposition of the death penalty.”
State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (1997). In addition to the substantive shortcomings of the procedure this Court has adopted, the continuing failure of our database compilation system to generate a reliable source of information for purposes of proportionality review further…”
State v. Hodges, 944 S.W.2d 346 (Tenn. 1997). “Thereafter, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1) (1996 Supp.”
State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286 (Tenn. 2005). “[Deleted: Proportionality Review] CONCLUSION In accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c), we have considered the entire record and conclude that the sentence of death has not been imposed arbitrarily, that the evidence supports the jury's finding of the statutory…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(1)(A): 1 case
State v. Blanton, 975 S.W.2d 269 (Tenn. 1998).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(C): 1 case
State v. Carter, 114 S.W.3d 895 (Tenn. 2003).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(a): 2 cases
State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411 (Tenn. 2001).
State v. Rimmer, 250 S.W.3d 12 (Tenn. 2008).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(a)(1): 45 cases
State of Tennessee v. Howard Hawk Willis, 496 S.W.3d 653 (Tenn. 2016). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1) (2014); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed HOLLY KIRBY, J.”
State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2004). “As to the sentences of death, however, I continue to adhere to my views that the comparative proportionality review protocol currently embraced by the *69 majority is inadequate to shield defendants from the arbitrary and disproportionate imposition of the death penalty.”
Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147 (Tenn. 2001).
State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121 (Tenn. 1998).
State of Tennessee v. Jessie Dotson, 450 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed C ORNELIA A.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(a)(2): 1 case
Pike v. State, 164 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 2005).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(a)(i): 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed 1 “Prior to the setting of oral argument, the Court shall review the record and briefs and consider all errors assigned.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(a)(l): 27 cases
State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008).
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997). “Thereafter, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1) (1996 Supp.”
State of Tennessee v. Howard Hawk Willis, 496 S.W.3d 653 (Tenn. 2016). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1) (2014); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed HOLLY KIRBY, J.”
State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503 (Tenn. 1998).
State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817 (Tenn. 2002).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(a)(l)(1997): 1 case
State v. Morris, 24 S.W.3d 788 (Tenn. 2000).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(b): 10 cases
State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002). “§ 39-13-206(c)(1) and the principles adopted in pri- or decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court, we have considered the entire record in this cause and find that the sentences of death were not imposed in any arbitrary fashion, that the evidence supports, as previously…”
State v. Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904 (Tenn. 1998).
State v. Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn. 1998).
State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn. 1998).
State v. Odom, 336 S.W.3d 541 (Tenn. 2011).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c): 29 cases
State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411 (Tenn. 2001).
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed 1 “Prior to the setting of oral argument, the Court shall review the record and briefs and consider all errors assigned.”
State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646 (Tenn. 2006). “Upon automatic appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 (2003), this Court entered an order specifying seven issues for oral argument, [1] including (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to…”
State v. Sims, 45 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2001).
State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn. 2000).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1): 81 cases
State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002). “§ 39-13-206(c)(1) and the principles adopted in pri- or decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court, we have considered the entire record in this cause and find that the sentences of death were not imposed in any arbitrary fashion, that the evidence supports, as previously…”
State v. Young, 196 S.W.3d 85 (Tenn. 2006).
State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2004). “As to the sentences of death, however, I continue to adhere to my views that the comparative proportionality review protocol currently embraced by the *69 majority is inadequate to shield defendants from the arbitrary and disproportionate imposition of the death penalty.”
State v. Hugueley, 185 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2006).
State v. Austin, 87 S.W.3d 447 (Tenn. 2002).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(1997): 1 case
State v. Dellinger, 79 S.W.3d 458 (Tenn. 2002).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(2018): 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Michael Rimmer, No. W2017-00504-CCA-R3-DD (Tenn. Crim. App. May 21, 2019).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(A): 33 cases
State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002). “§ 39-13-206(c)(1) and the principles adopted in pri- or decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court, we have considered the entire record in this cause and find that the sentences of death were not imposed in any arbitrary fashion, that the evidence supports, as previously…”
State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646 (Tenn. 2006). “Upon automatic appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 (2003), this Court entered an order specifying seven issues for oral argument, [1] including (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to…”
State v. Smith, 993 S.W.2d 6 (Tenn. 1999).
State v. Ivy, 188 S.W.3d 132 (Tenn. 2006).
State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2005).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(A)(C): 3 cases
Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147 (Tenn. 2001).
State v. Austin, 87 S.W.3d 447 (Tenn. 2002).
State v. Ivy, 188 S.W.3d 132 (Tenn. 2006).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(B): 15 cases
State v. Davis, 141 S.W.3d 600 (Tenn. 2004).
State v. Ivy, 188 S.W.3d 132 (Tenn. 2006).
State v. Reid, 213 S.W.3d 792 (Tenn. 2006).
State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (1997). In addition to the substantive shortcomings of the procedure this Court has adopted, the continuing failure of our database compilation system to generate a reliable source of information for purposes of proportionality review further…”
State v. Thomas, 158 S.W.3d 361 (Tenn. 2005).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(C): 9 cases
State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008).
State v. Hester, 324 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2010).
State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (1997). In addition to the substantive shortcomings of the procedure this Court has adopted, the continuing failure of our database compilation system to generate a reliable source of information for purposes of proportionality review further…”
State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286 (Tenn. 2005). “[Deleted: Proportionality Review] CONCLUSION In accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c), we have considered the entire record and conclude that the sentence of death has not been imposed arbitrarily, that the evidence supports the jury's finding of the statutory…”
State v. Ivy, 188 S.W.3d 132 (Tenn. 2006).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(D): 88 cases
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed 1 “Prior to the setting of oral argument, the Court shall review the record and briefs and consider all errors assigned.”
State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002). “§ 39-13-206(c)(1) and the principles adopted in pri- or decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court, we have considered the entire record in this cause and find that the sentences of death were not imposed in any arbitrary fashion, that the evidence supports, as previously…”
State v. Thomas, 158 S.W.3d 361 (Tenn. 2005).
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2017). “The case was thereafter automatically docketed in this Court for review, as required by statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1), (c)(1).”
State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817 (Tenn. 2002).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(2): 3 cases
State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008).
State v. Hester, 324 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2010).
State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn. 1992).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(4): 2 cases
State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn. 1998).
State v. Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn. 1998).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(A): 1 case
State v. Holton, 126 S.W.3d 845 (Tenn. 2004).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(Z)(D): 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed 1 “Prior to the setting of oral argument, the Court shall review the record and briefs and consider all errors assigned.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(l): 39 cases
State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2004). “As to the sentences of death, however, I continue to adhere to my views that the comparative proportionality review protocol currently embraced by the *69 majority is inadequate to shield defendants from the arbitrary and disproportionate imposition of the death penalty.”
State of Tennessee v. Jessie Dotson, 450 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed C ORNELIA A.”
State v. McKinney, 74 S.W.3d 291 (Tenn. 2002).
State v. Schmeiderer, 319 S.W.3d 607 (Tenn. 2010).
State v. Hugueley, 185 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2006).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(l)(1997): 1 case
State v. Morris, 24 S.W.3d 788 (Tenn. 2000).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(l)(A): 18 cases
State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646 (Tenn. 2006). “Upon automatic appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 (2003), this Court entered an order specifying seven issues for oral argument, [1] including (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to…”
State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2005).
State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (1997). In addition to the substantive shortcomings of the procedure this Court has adopted, the continuing failure of our database compilation system to generate a reliable source of information for purposes of proportionality review further…”
State v. Thomas, 158 S.W.3d 361 (Tenn. 2005).
State v. Young, 196 S.W.3d 85 (Tenn. 2006).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(l)(A)(C): 2 cases
Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147 (Tenn. 2001).
State v. Austin, 87 S.W.3d 447 (Tenn. 2002).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(l)(A)(D): 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Richard Odom, 137 S.W.3d 572 (Tenn. 2004).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(l)(B): 5 cases
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed 1 “Prior to the setting of oral argument, the Court shall review the record and briefs and consider all errors assigned.”
State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn. 1992).
State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286 (Tenn. 2005). “[Deleted: Proportionality Review] CONCLUSION In accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c), we have considered the entire record and conclude that the sentence of death has not been imposed arbitrarily, that the evidence supports the jury's finding of the statutory…”
State v. Bush, 942 S.W.2d 489 (Tenn. 1997).
Payne v. Bell, 194 F. Supp. 2d 739 (W.D. Tenn. 2002).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(l)(C): 5 cases
State of Tennessee v. Lemaricus Devall Davidson, 509 S.W.3d 156 (Tenn. 2016).
State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (1997). In addition to the substantive shortcomings of the procedure this Court has adopted, the continuing failure of our database compilation system to generate a reliable source of information for purposes of proportionality review further…”
State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286 (Tenn. 2005). “[Deleted: Proportionality Review] CONCLUSION In accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c), we have considered the entire record and conclude that the sentence of death has not been imposed arbitrarily, that the evidence supports the jury's finding of the statutory…”
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed 1 “Prior to the setting of oral argument, the Court shall review the record and briefs and consider all errors assigned.”
State v. Ivy, 188 S.W.3d 132 (Tenn. 2006).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(l)(D): 34 cases
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed 1 “Prior to the setting of oral argument, the Court shall review the record and briefs and consider all errors assigned.”
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997). “Thereafter, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1) (1996 Supp.”
State of Tennessee v. Sedrick Clayton, 535 S.W.3d 829 (Tenn. 2017). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed 1 We heard oral argument in this case on June 1, 2017, at Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee, as part of this Court’s S.”
State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2005).
State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn. 1992).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(d)(2): 5 cases
State v. Holton, 126 S.W.3d 845 (Tenn. 2004).
State v. Blanton, 975 S.W.2d 269 (Tenn. 1998).
State v. Harris, 919 S.W.2d 323 (Tenn. 1996).
State v. Shepherd, 902 S.W.2d 895 (Tenn. 1995).
Workman v. State, 22 S.W.3d 807 (Tenn. 2000).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(e): 6 cases
Nichols v. State, 90 S.W.3d 576 (Tenn. 2002).
State v. Powers, 101 S.W.3d 383 (Tenn. 2003).
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed 1 “Prior to the setting of oral argument, the Court shall review the record and briefs and consider all errors assigned.”
State of Tennessee v. Nickolus L. Johnson, 401 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013).
State v. Suttles, 30 S.W.3d 252 (Tenn. 2000).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(e)(1): 1 case
State v. Powers, 101 S.W.3d 383 (Tenn. 2003).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(e)(1)(B): 2 cases
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997). “Thereafter, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1) (1996 Supp.”
State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503 (Tenn. 1998).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(e)(1)(D): 1 case
State v. Hester, 324 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2010).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(e)(l): 6 cases
State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646 (Tenn. 2006). “Upon automatic appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 (2003), this Court entered an order specifying seven issues for oral argument, [1] including (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to…”
State v. Carter, 114 S.W.3d 895 (Tenn. 2003).
State v. Rogers, 188 S.W.3d 593 (Tenn. 2006).
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997). “Thereafter, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1) (1996 Supp.”
State v. Austin, 87 S.W.3d 447 (Tenn. 2002).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(e)(l)(A): 2 cases
State v. Berry, 141 S.W.3d 549 (Tenn. 2004).
State v. Kiser, 284 S.W.3d 227 (Tenn. 2009).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(e)(l)(A)(C): 1 case
State v. Ivy, 188 S.W.3d 132 (Tenn. 2006).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(e)(l)(B): 1 case
State v. Rimmer, 250 S.W.3d 12 (Tenn. 2008).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(e)(l)(D): 7 cases
State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008).
State v. Dellinger, 79 S.W.3d 458 (Tenn. 2002).
State of Tennessee v. Jessie Dotson, 450 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (a)(1); Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed C ORNELIA A.”
State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593 (Tenn. 1999).
State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722 (Tenn. 1994).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(i)(7): 1 case
State v. Robinson, 146 S.W.3d 469 (Tenn. 2004).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(l)(A): 1 case
State v. Blanton, 975 S.W.2d 269 (Tenn. 1998).
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.