Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-105 (2026)
Processing of petitions - Designation of judge
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) When in receipt of a petition applying for post-conviction relief, the clerk of the trial court shall forthwith:
- (1) Make three (3) copies of the petition;
- (2) Docket and file the original petition and its attachments;
- (3) Mail one (1) copy of the petition to the attorney general and reporter in Nashville;
- (4) Mail or forward one (1) copy of the petition to the district attorney general;
- (5) Mail or forward one (1) copy to petitioner's original attorney;
- (6) Advise the presiding judge that the petition has been filed; and
- (7) Deliver the petition, its attachments, and all available files, records, and correspondence relating to the judgment under attack to the assigned judge for preliminary consideration.
- (b) At either the trial proceeding or an appellate proceeding reviewing the proceeding, the presiding judge of the appropriate court shall assign a judge to hear the petition. The issue of competency of counsel may be heard by a judge other than the original hearing judge. If a presiding judge is unable to assign a judge, the chief justice of the supreme court shall designate an appropriate judge to hear the matter.
- (c) A petition for habeas corpus may be treated as a petition under this part when the relief and procedure authorized by this part appear adequate and appropriate, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in title 29, chapter 21, or any other statute.
Acts 1995, ch. 207, § 1; 1996, ch. 995, § 4; T.C.A. § 40-30-205.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 132
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Terrance N. CARTER v. Rickey BELL, 279 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2009).
Terrance N. CARTER v. Rickey BELL, 279 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2009). “” T.C.A. § 40-30-105(c). In considering whether a post-conviction petition states a colorable claim for relief, the post-conviction court is to take the facts alleged as true.”
Rhoden v. State, 816 S.W.2d 56 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-105. See Teague v.”
Cooper v. State, 847 S.W.2d 521 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). “T.C.A. § 40-30-105. The record indicates that the jury commissioners systematically excluded the nonvoters and particular persons whom they viewed to have exemptions.”
Rickman v. State, 972 S.W.2d 687 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “" Nevertheless, we conclude that the record supports the post-conviction court's finding that the appellant has waived the following issues: [9] whether the appellant was denied his right, under the Tennessee constitution, to a unanimous jury verdict; whether the death penalty…”
Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-102 (1990). 3 . Tenn.”
Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-105 (1990). Prior to the 1986 amendment to the Act, a prisoner could petition for post-conviction relief under the Act "at any time after he ha[d] exhausted his appellate remedies and before the sentence ha[d] expired or ha[d] been fully satisfied.”
Coker v. State, 911 S.W.2d 357 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-105. II (SECOND PETITION, NO.”
Bankston v. State, 815 S.W.2d 213 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-105 . If successful, the petitioner should then be in a position to mount an attack upon the habitual offender judgment.”
Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993). “T.C.A. § 40-30-105. Despite recognition by the state judiciary that “[hjabeas corpus under Tennessee law has always been, and remains, a very narrow procedure,” Luttrell v.”
State v. Neal, 810 S.W.2d 131 (Tenn. 1991). “Section 40-30-105. Further the applicable harmless error rule differs, as will be pointed out hereinafter.”
Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 915 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “of any right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States, including a right that was not recognized as existing at the time of the trial if either constitution requires retrospective application of that right,” T.C.A. § 40-30-105,…”
Swanson v. State, 749 S.W.2d 731 (Tenn. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-30-105 expressly permits relief when the grounds were not recognized at the time of the conviction and have been applied retroactively.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-105(1990): 1 case
Rickman v. State, 972 S.W.2d 687 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “" Nevertheless, we conclude that the record supports the post-conviction court's finding that the appellant has waived the following issues: [9] whether the appellant was denied his right, under the Tennessee constitution, to a unanimous jury verdict; whether the death penalty…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-105(b): 5 cases
William B. Gatlin v. State of Tennessee, No. M2016-00824-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. June 23, 2017).
Jerome Sidney Barrett v. State of Tennessee, No. M2015-01143-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 12, 2016).
Charles Rice v. State of Tennessee, No. W2011-01069-CCA-R3-PD (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 27, 2013).
Ronnie Lee Johnson v. State of Tennessee, No. M2011-00881-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 29, 2012).
Terry Lea Bunch v. State of Tennessee, No. M2017-00670-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 2, 2018).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-105(c): 14 cases
Terrance N. CARTER v. Rickey BELL, 279 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2009). “” T.C.A. § 40-30-105(c). In considering whether a post-conviction petition states a colorable claim for relief, the post-conviction court is to take the facts alleged as true.”
James Robert Oliphant v. State of Tennessee, No. E2017-02147-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 23, 2018).
Timothy A. Baxter v. State of Tennessee, No. E2024-01253-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 17, 2025).
Cedric Jeffries v. Steven Dotson, Warden, No. W2009-00816-CCA-R3-HC, 2009 WL 4789975 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 14, 2009).
Terrance Carter v. State of Tennessee, No. M2006-01363-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 21, 2007).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-105(g): 1 case
Kristie M. Smith v. State of Tennessee, No. E2017-02344-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 23, 2018).
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.