Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 (2026)

Felons convicted of infamous crimes - Dates

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Acts 1986, ch. 906, § 1; 1989, ch. 227, § 51; 1996, ch. 898, §§ 1, 2; 1998, ch. 1049, § 41.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: State v. Johnson, 79 S.W.3d 522 (Tenn. 2002).
State v. Johnson, 79 S.W.3d 522 (Tenn. 2002). · cites it 4× “For convictions after July 1, 1986 but before July 1, 1996, a person may petition for restoration based on a pardon, service or expiration of the maximum sentence for the offense, or “final release” from incarceration or supervision.”
United States v. White, 808 F. Supp. 586 (M.D. Tenn. 1992). · cites it 10× “” It states that all such persons who have received an unconditional pardon, who have served their sentence for the infamous crime, or who have been granted final release from incarceration or supervision by the board of parole or the department of correction may have their full…”
Billy Walker v. United States, 800 F.3d 720 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “restored pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 .” The same court issued a second order on March 22, 2012, confirming the restoration of rights in the prior order, and clarifying that Walker “shall have the explicit right to bear and possess firearms.”
John N. Moffitt v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 28× “T.C.A. § 40-29-105 (c)(2)(b) provides: A person convicted of an infamous crime may petition for restoration upon the expiration of the maximum sentence imposed by the court for the infamous crime; provided, that a person convicted of murder, rape, treason or voter fraud shall…”
State v. David Black (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 34× “However, the District Attorney General (“State”) filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order because he was not notified by the trial court of the petition as mandated by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 (c)(4)(A) and, therefore, could not oppose it.”
Gregory L. Smith v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 19× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 (b)(3). The authority issuing the certificate was required to send a copy to the coordinator of elections.”
State of Tennessee v. Jason Kevin Dedreux (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 10× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 (c)(2)(B). The petition must: (1) be filed either in the circuit court of the county where the petitioner resides or the county where the conviction for the crime occurred, (2) “set forth the basis for the petitioner’s eligibility for restoration,”…”
Tino C. Sutton v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 (c)(3) (West August 5, 2013, to current).”
State of Tennessee v. John Edward Johnson, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 (b)(1) (Supp.”
State of Tennessee v. Roscoe Dixon (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 (outlining the various types of restoration procedure applicable based upon the date of “conviction,” but stating that the deprivation takes place at the time of judgment rather than verdict).”
State of Tennessee v. John Edward Johnson, Jr. - Dissenting (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “§ 40-29-105 (restoration of right to vote); TENN.”
State v. Glenn A. Saddler (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “§ 40-29-105(b), the applicable statute, does not speak of “credibility” or honesty.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105(b) — 3 cases
State v. Johnson, 79 S.W.3d 522 (Tenn. 2002). “For convictions after July 1, 1986 but before July 1, 1996, a person may petition for restoration based on a pardon, service or expiration of the maximum sentence for the offense, or “final release” from incarceration or supervision.”
Gregory L. Smith v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 (b)(3). The authority issuing the certificate was required to send a copy to the coordinator of elections.”
State v. Glenn A. Saddler (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “§ 40-29-105(b), the applicable statute, does not speak of “credibility” or honesty.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105(b)(1) — 1 case
United States v. White, 808 F. Supp. 586 (M.D. Tenn. 1992). “” It states that all such persons who have received an unconditional pardon, who have served their sentence for the infamous crime, or who have been granted final release from incarceration or supervision by the board of parole or the department of correction may have their full…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105(b)(1)(C) — 1 case
Gregory L. Smith v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 (b)(3). The authority issuing the certificate was required to send a copy to the coordinator of elections.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105(b)(2) — 3 cases
United States v. White, 808 F. Supp. 586 (M.D. Tenn. 1992). “” It states that all such persons who have received an unconditional pardon, who have served their sentence for the infamous crime, or who have been granted final release from incarceration or supervision by the board of parole or the department of correction may have their full…”
John N. Moffitt v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “T.C.A. § 40-29-105 (c)(2)(b) provides: A person convicted of an infamous crime may petition for restoration upon the expiration of the maximum sentence imposed by the court for the infamous crime; provided, that a person convicted of murder, rape, treason or voter fraud shall…”
State of Tennessee v. John Edward Johnson, Jr. - Dissenting (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “§ 40-29-105 (restoration of right to vote); TENN.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105(b)(3) — 2 cases
United States v. White, 808 F. Supp. 586 (M.D. Tenn. 1992). “” It states that all such persons who have received an unconditional pardon, who have served their sentence for the infamous crime, or who have been granted final release from incarceration or supervision by the board of parole or the department of correction may have their full…”
Gregory L. Smith v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 (b)(3). The authority issuing the certificate was required to send a copy to the coordinator of elections.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105(c) — 4 cases
State v. Johnson, 79 S.W.3d 522 (Tenn. 2002). “For convictions after July 1, 1986 but before July 1, 1996, a person may petition for restoration based on a pardon, service or expiration of the maximum sentence for the offense, or “final release” from incarceration or supervision.”
John N. Moffitt v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “T.C.A. § 40-29-105 (c)(2)(b) provides: A person convicted of an infamous crime may petition for restoration upon the expiration of the maximum sentence imposed by the court for the infamous crime; provided, that a person convicted of murder, rape, treason or voter fraud shall…”
Gregory L. Smith v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 (b)(3). The authority issuing the certificate was required to send a copy to the coordinator of elections.”
Tino C. Sutton v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 (c)(3) (West August 5, 2013, to current).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105(c)(2)(B) — 2 cases
State v. Johnson, 79 S.W.3d 522 (Tenn. 2002). “For convictions after July 1, 1986 but before July 1, 1996, a person may petition for restoration based on a pardon, service or expiration of the maximum sentence for the offense, or “final release” from incarceration or supervision.”
John N. Moffitt v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “T.C.A. § 40-29-105 (c)(2)(b) provides: A person convicted of an infamous crime may petition for restoration upon the expiration of the maximum sentence imposed by the court for the infamous crime; provided, that a person convicted of murder, rape, treason or voter fraud shall…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105(c)(4)(A) — 1 case
Tino C. Sutton v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-105 (c)(3) (West August 5, 2013, to current).”
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.