Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-14-204 (2026)
Proceedings for writs
✓ current as of May 2026
In all proceedings for the writ of habeas corpus or the writ of error coram nobis, the court having jurisdiction of those matters shall determine the question of indigency and appoint counsel, if necessary, in the manner set out in this part.
Acts 1965, ch. 217, § 6; T.C.A., § 40-2019.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007).
Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007). “§ 40-14-204 (2006). Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-14-204 states that in habeas corpus proceedings the trial court “shall determine the question of indigency and appoint counsel, if necessary, in the manner set out in this part.”
Allen v. McWilliams, 715 S.W.2d 28 (Tenn. 1986). “T.C.A. 40-14-204 provides for the appointment of counsel in proceedings for habeas corpus or writ of error coram no-bis.”
Patrick Marshall v. Brandon Watwood, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “3d at 261 (holding that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-14-204 allows for the appointment of counsel in habeas corpus cases on a discretionary basis and that appointment is not necessary within the meaning of the section “merely because a petition states a cognizable claim”…”
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Tyrone Flanigan (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-14-204 (2025). Because the decision whether to appoint counsel in this context lies within the trial court’s discretion, we leave that determination to the trial court on remand.”
Lemar Brooks v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-14-204 . Our supreme court has previously held that there “is no federal or state constitutional right to counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding.”
Steven Lamont Anderson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “If a petition for writ of habeas corpus does not allege any ground upon which relief may be granted, the petition may be summarily dismissed without the appointment of counsel.”
Howard Hawk Willis v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “Schreane, 2013 WL 173193 , at *7 (citing Richard Hale Austin, 2006 WL 3626332 , *6); see also T.C.A. § 40-14-204 (stating that appointment of counsel in an error coram nobis proceeding is left to the discretion of the trial court).”
Demarcus Keyon Cole v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “…App. Jan. 11, 2012). Instead, the appointment of counsel is within the discretion of the trial court. Id. (citing T.C.A. § 40-14-204).”
Michael Eugene St. Clair v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “” Therefore, a particular counsel’s county of appointment cannot be a sufficient reason to convey venue in a proceeding that mandates scrupulous adherence to rules of procedure.”
Thomas N. Allen v. Stanton Heidle, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-14-204 (providing the habeas corpus court “shall determine the question of indigency and appoint counsel, if necessary, in the manner set out in this part.”
Bobby Joe Strader v. David Osborne, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “; see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-14-204 . Indeed, appointment of counsel is not even required when “a petition states a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief.”
Roger T. Johnson v. Ricky Bell, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “An indigent petitioner does not have a constitutional right to counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding unless the trial court determines that counsel is “necessary” under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-14-204. Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 261 .”
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.