Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-101 (2026)
Judgment after verdict - Modification of verdict
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) After a verdict against the defendant, if the judgment is not arrested or a new trial granted, the court shall pronounce judgment.
- (b) If, in the pronouncement of a judgment where a defendant has been retried either following an order granting a retrial by a court of this state or in obedience to a decision of a court of the United States, it becomes necessary that the jury's verdict be modified to prevent a sentence on the second trial being greater than the verdict pronounced at the first trial, then the trial court is authorized to modify the jury's verdict and pronounce judgment accordingly.
Code 1858, § 5225; Shan., § 7198; Code 1932, § 11761; Acts 1972, ch. 591, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 40-2701.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: State v. Berry, 503 S.W.3d 360 (Tenn. 2015).
State v. Berry, 503 S.W.3d 360 (Tenn. 2015). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-101 (a) (2012). When a jury returns a guilty verdict, the trial court executes a document referred to as a “judgment of conviction” that must be entered 1 by the clerk.”
Jose Rodriguez a.k.a. Alex Lopez v. State of Tennessee, 437 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2014). “2d at 545 (explaining that in the technical sense, the judgment of conviction “provides the legal authority for the executive branch of government to incarcerate a person who is sentenced to confinement”); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-20-101 (stating that “[ajfter a verdict against the…”
State v. Vasser, 870 S.W.2d 543 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “See T.C.A. §§ 40-20-101, 40-28-101. Also, the technical meaning is normally used, absent statutory definition to the contrary, when referring to the indirect or subsequent consequences which might result, such as, future civil disabilities.”
State v. Davidson, 816 S.W.2d 316 (Tenn. 1991). “In this case, since it is clear that all of the charges that are involved were brought four years and five months after the alleged victim reached her majority, we must look to the wording of the presentments to judge whether or not the wording as a matter of law tolled the…”
State v. Washington, 661 S.W.2d 900 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983). “The purpose of T.C.A. § 40-20-101(b), providing authority for the trial court to modify a jury verdict on retrial, is not mandatory, but permissive.”
Henry T. Johnson v. Bradon Watwood, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “Specifically, the Petitioner contends he raised cognizable claims for habeas corpus relief and asserts his judgment of conviction of first degree murder is void because (1) the trial court failed to pronounce judgment or sentence pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section…”
Marvin Anthony Matthews v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “Indeed, in a prior habeas corpus petition, the trial court found that “the trial court’s judgment was not void, was issued in compliance with T.C.A. § 40-20-101 and § 40-20-107, and was entered on the minutes.”
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Maurice Jackson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “17 (requiring a judgment form to be prepared “for each conviction”); T.C.A. § 40-20-101(a) (“After a verdict against the defendant, if the judgment is not arrested or a new trial granted, the court shall pronounce judgment.”
Craig Markeem Taylor v. Brandon Watwood, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “On July 17, 2023, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged that his judgments were void and illegal because they were imposed in contravention of Rule 31 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and Tennessee Code Annotated section…”
Kerry Jordan v. YMCA of Middle Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “However, our legislature enacted the Equine Activities Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-101 et seq. to encourage horsemanship and other equine activities by limiting liability for those involved in such activities.”
Marvin Anthony Matthews v. David Mills, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “In the prior habeas corpus proceeding, the habeas corpus court found that “the trial court’s judgment was not void, was issued in compliance with T.C.A. § 40-20-101 and § 40-20-107, and was entered on the minutes, that the Mittimus Writ of Confinement was valid on its face, and…”
Marvin Anthony Matthews, pro se v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “This Court held that the judgment entered by the trial court complied both with Rule 32(e), Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, and section 40-20-101, Tennessee Code Annotated.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-101(a) — 2 cases
Henry T. Johnson v. Bradon Watwood, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “Specifically, the Petitioner contends he raised cognizable claims for habeas corpus relief and asserts his judgment of conviction of first degree murder is void because (1) the trial court failed to pronounce judgment or sentence pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section…”
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Maurice Jackson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “17 (requiring a judgment form to be prepared “for each conviction”); T.C.A. § 40-20-101(a) (“After a verdict against the defendant, if the judgment is not arrested or a new trial granted, the court shall pronounce judgment.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-101(b) — 1 case
State v. Washington, 661 S.W.2d 900 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983). “The purpose of T.C.A. § 40-20-101(b), providing authority for the trial court to modify a jury verdict on retrial, is not mandatory, but permissive.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-101(c) — 1 case
State v. Davidson, 816 S.W.2d 316 (Tenn. 1991). “In this case, since it is clear that all of the charges that are involved were brought four years and five months after the alleged victim reached her majority, we must look to the wording of the presentments to judge whether or not the wording as a matter of law tolled the…”
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.