Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105 (2026)

Writ of error coram nobis

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) There is made available to convicted defendants in criminal cases a proceeding in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, to be governed by the same rules and procedures applicable to the writ of error coram nobis in civil cases, except insofar as inconsistent herewith. Notice of the suing out of the writ shall be served on the district attorney general except in cases where a defendant has been sentenced to death, where notice shall be served on the attorney general and reporter. A judge does not have authority to order the writ to operate as a supersedeas. The court has authority to order the person having custody of the petitioner to produce the petitioner in court for the hearing of the proceeding.

(b) The relief obtainable by this proceeding shall be confined to errors dehors the record and to matters that were not or could not have been litigated on the trial of the case, on a motion for a new trial, on appeal in the nature of a writ of error, on writ of error, or in a habeas corpus proceeding. Upon a showing by the defendant that the defendant was without fault in failing to present certain evidence at the proper time, a writ of error coram nobis will lie for subsequently or newly discovered evidence relating to matters which were litigated at the trial if the judge determines that such evidence may have resulted in a different judgment, had it been presented at the trial.

(c) The issue shall be tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and if the decision be in favor of the petitioner, the judgment complained of shall be set aside and the defendant shall be granted a new trial in that cause. In the event a new trial is granted, the court may, in its discretion, admit the petitioner to bail; provided, that the offense is bailable. If not admitted to bail, the petitioner shall be confined in the county jail to await trial.

(d) The petitioner or the state may pray an appeal in the nature of a writ of error to the court of criminal appeals from the final judgment in this proceeding.

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 182, s 5, eff. 4/28/2023.

Acts 1955, ch. 166, § 1; 1978, ch. 738, § 1; modified; T.C.A., §40-3411; Acts 2010 , ch. 652, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 484 cases (70 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Stephen Bernard Wlodarz v. State of Tennessee, 361 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stephen Bernard Wlodarz v. State of Tennessee, 361 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2012). · cites it 104× “§ 27-7-103 (2000), and must demonstrate that the petitioner was “without fault” or was diligent and exercised due care in discovering and presenting the purported newly discovered evidence, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105 (b); see generally Johnson v.”

State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007). · cites it 38× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-26-105 (2006). [2] As indicated, Agent Howell, the lead TBI agent in the investigation of the defendants, had been involved in the arrest of the informant Rodriguez, who arranged the drug transaction with the defendants.”

Clark D. Frazier v. State of Tennessee, 495 S.W.3d 246 (Tenn. 2016). · cites it 26× “Upon a showing by the defendant that the defendant was without fault in failing to present certain evidence at the proper time, a writ 2 of error coram nobis will lie for subsequently or newly discovered evidence relating to matters which were litigated at the trial if the judge…”

Pervis Tyrone Payne v. State of Tennessee, 493 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. 2016). · cites it 14× “at 668 (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-26-105 (1997 Repl.)).”

Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 915 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). · cites it 26× “He contends his convictions and death sentence should be set *918 aside and vacated because (a) evidence discovered subsequent to the petitioner’s conviction, which was not known prior to trial, may have resulted in a different judgment had it been presented at trial, (b) the…”

Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 11× “The case is remanded to Division III of the Criminal Court for Shelby County for a hearing on the petition for writ of error coram nobis.”

State v. Hart, 911 S.W.2d 371 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 12× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-26-105. However, the remedy is limited to “errors dehors the ree-ord and to matters that were not or could not have been litigated on the trial of a case, on a motion for a new trial, on appeal in the nature of a writ of error, on writ of error, .”

Freshwater v. State, 160 S.W.3d 548 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-26-105; Kinnaird, 2001 WL 881371 , at *5.”

Ricky Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587 (Tenn. 2003). · cites it 6× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105 (1997); see also State v.”

State v. Workman, 111 S.W.3d 10 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). · cites it 7× “” See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-26-105. We conclude that some, but not all, of the terminology used by the trial court suggests a higher burden of proof than contemplated by the statute.”

State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2017). · cites it 4× “‖ T.C.A. § 40-26-105. Examples of newly discovered evidence include a - 59 - victim‘s recanted testimony or physical evidence which casts doubts on the guilt of the Petitioner.”

Cyrus Deville Wilson v. State of Tennessee, 367 S.W.3d 229 (Tenn. 2012). · cites it 6× “The writ is made available to convicted defendants based on Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-26-105(a) (2006 & Supp.2011), which provides that coram no-bis relief may be had based on newly discovered evidence: Upon a showing by the defendant that the defendant was without…”

Show all 484 citing cases →

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105(A)(B) — 1 case

Jones (M.D. Tenn. 2026).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105(a) — 43 cases

State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-26-105 (2006). [2] As indicated, Agent Howell, the lead TBI agent in the investigation of the defendants, had been involved in the arrest of the informant Rodriguez, who arranged the drug transaction with the defendants.”

Pervis Tyrone Payne v. State of Tennessee, 493 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. 2016). “at 668 (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-26-105 (1997 Repl.)).”

Stephen Bernard Wlodarz v. State of Tennessee, 361 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2012). “§ 27-7-103 (2000), and must demonstrate that the petitioner was “without fault” or was diligent and exercised due care in discovering and presenting the purported newly discovered evidence, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105 (b); see generally Johnson v.”

Cyrus Deville Wilson v. State of Tennessee, 367 S.W.3d 229 (Tenn. 2012). “The writ is made available to convicted defendants based on Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-26-105(a) (2006 & Supp.2011), which provides that coram no-bis relief may be had based on newly discovered evidence: Upon a showing by the defendant that the defendant was without…”

Ricky HARRIS v. STATE of Tennessee, 301 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2010).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105(a)(2018) — 1 case

Demarcus Keyon Cole v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105(b) — 191 cases

Clark D. Frazier v. State of Tennessee, 495 S.W.3d 246 (Tenn. 2016). “Upon a showing by the defendant that the defendant was without fault in failing to present certain evidence at the proper time, a writ 2 of error coram nobis will lie for subsequently or newly discovered evidence relating to matters which were litigated at the trial if the judge…”

Pervis Tyrone Payne v. State of Tennessee, 493 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. 2016). “at 668 (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-26-105 (1997 Repl.)).”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105(c) — 4 cases

Pervis Tyrone Payne v. State of Tennessee, 493 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. 2016). “at 668 (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-26-105 (1997 Repl.)).”

Ricky HARRIS v. STATE of Tennessee, 301 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2010).

Howard Hawk Willis v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).

Ronnie Jackson, Jr. v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105(d) — 1 case

Billy Ray Irick v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).

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.