Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106 (2026)

Preliminary consideration

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) The trial judge to whom the case is assigned shall, within thirty (30) days of the filing of the original petition, or a petition amended in accordance with subsection (d), examine it together with all the files, records, transcripts, and correspondence relating to the judgment under attack, and enter an order in accordance with this section or § 40-30-107.

(b) If it plainly appears from the face of the petition, any annexed exhibits or the prior proceedings in the case that the petition was not filed in the court of conviction or within the time set forth in the statute of limitations, or that a prior petition was filed attacking the conviction and was resolved on the merits, the judge shall enter an order dismissing the petition. The order shall state the reason for the dismissal and the facts requiring dismissal. If the petition is dismissed as untimely, the order shall state or the record shall reflect the date of conviction, whether an appeal was taken, the name of each court to which an appeal was taken, the date of the final action by each appellate court, and the date upon which the petition was filed.

(c) If it appears that a post-conviction petition challenging the same conviction is already pending in either the trial court, court of criminal appeals, or supreme court, the judge shall enter an order dismissing the subsequent petition. The order shall state the style of the pending petition and in which court it is pending.

(d) The petition must contain a clear and specific statement of all grounds upon which relief is sought, including full disclosure of the factual basis of those grounds. A bare allegation that a constitutional right has been violated and mere conclusions of law shall not be sufficient to warrant any further proceedings. Failure to state a factual basis for the grounds alleged shall result in immediate dismissal of the petition. If, however, the petition was filed pro se, the judge may enter an order stating that the petitioner must file an amended petition that complies with this section within fifteen (15) days or the petition will be dismissed.

(e) If a petition amended in accordance with subsection (d) is incomplete, the court shall determine whether the petitioner is indigent and in need of counsel. The court may appoint counsel and enter a preliminary order if necessary to secure the filing of a complete petition. Counsel may file an amended petition within thirty (30) days of appointment.

(f) Upon receipt of a petition in proper form, or upon receipt of an amended petition, the court shall examine the allegations of fact in the petition. If the facts alleged, taken as true, fail to show that the petitioner is entitled to relief or fail to show that the claims for relief have not been waived or previously determined, the petition shall be dismissed. The order of dismissal shall set forth the court's conclusions of law.

(g) A ground for relief is waived if the petitioner personally or through an attorney failed to present it for determination in any proceeding before a court of competent jurisdiction in which the ground could have been presented unless:
- (1) The claim for relief is based upon a constitutional right not recognized as existing at the time of trial if either the federal or state constitution requires retroactive application of that right; or
- (2) The failure to present the ground was the result of state action in violation of the federal or state constitution.

(h) A ground for relief is previously determined if a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on the merits after a full and fair hearing. A full and fair hearing has occurred where the petitioner is afforded the opportunity to call witnesses and otherwise present evidence, regardless of whether the petitioner actually introduced any evidence.

(i) If the petition is not dismissed pursuant to this rule, the court shall enter a preliminary order as provided in § 40-30-107.

Acts 1995, ch. 207, § 1; 1996, ch. 995, §§ 5-7; T.C.A. § 40-30-206.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 777 cases (144 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 10× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106 (g) (2003). To rebut the presumption, the petition must contain “allegations of fact supporting each claim for relief set forth in the petition and allegations of fact explaining why each ground for relief was not previously presented in any earlier…”

Wiley v. State, 183 S.W.3d 317 (Tenn. 2006). · cites it 6× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-106(g) (2003). A ground for relief is not waived, however, if it is “based upon a constitutional right not recognized as existing at the time of trial if either the federal or state constitution requires retroactive application of that right” or if…”

Terrance N. CARTER v. Rickey BELL, 279 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2009). · cites it 6× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-106(d) (2006). Since Mr.”

David Keen v. State of Tennessee, 398 S.W.3d 594 (Tenn. 2012). · cites it 8× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106 (g) (2012). The statutory prohibition against executing intellectually disabled persons was in effect during both of Mr.”

Brandon Mobley v. State of Tennessee, 397 S.W.3d 70 (Tenn. 2013). · cites it 4× “Mobley waived this due process claim, see Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-106(g), and that the stun belt issue is more properly considered in the context of Mr.”

Gdongalay P. Berry v. State of Tennessee, 366 S.W.3d 160 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “T.C.A. § 40-30-106(h) (2006). Although the petitioner’s failure to present the issue in the trial court precluded his ability to present evidence supporting his claim and although this court and the supreme noted that “meaningful review” was not possible because the issue was…”

Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-106(g) (2003); see, e.”

Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007). “§§ 40-30-106 & -107 (2006); Tenn. R. Sup.”

Coleman v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011). · cites it 6× “§ 40-30-102(c) also states that the Act “contemplates the filing of only one (1) petition for post-conviction relief,” allowing a petition that has been resolved to be reopened only under the limited circumstances specified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-117 . To avoid dismissal, a…”

Tracy Rose Baker v. State of Tennessee, 417 S.W.3d 428 (Tenn. 2013). · cites it 2× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106 (f) (2012). 4 The *433 Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal based on its finding that the Agreed Order adjudicated the petitioner in criminal contempt pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-9-102, the general contempt statute,…”

Reid v. State, 197 S.W.3d 694 (Tenn. 2006). · cites it 2× “*709 § 40-30-106® (providing for dismissal of post-conviction claims where the claims could have been — but were not — raised in a prior proceeding, or where the claims have been “previously determined”)- Furthermore, the grounds for re-opening a previously filed post-conviction…”

Jose Rodriguez a.k.a. Alex Lopez v. State of Tennessee, 437 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2014). · cites it 2× “” Likewise, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-106(a) requires the trial judge to conduct a preliminary examination of the petition together “with all the files, records, transcripts, and correspondence relating to the judgment under attack” and determine whether the…”

Show all 777 citing cases →

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(a) — 16 cases

Jose Rodriguez a.k.a. Alex Lopez v. State of Tennessee, 437 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2014). “” Likewise, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-106(a) requires the trial judge to conduct a preliminary examination of the petition together “with all the files, records, transcripts, and correspondence relating to the judgment under attack” and determine whether the…”

Andre Benson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).

John Michael Bane v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).

William Alexander Cocke Stuart v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).

George William Brady v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(b) — 92 cases

Corey Lynn Clark v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).

Andre Benson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).

Christopher Young v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).

Jeffrey McCoy v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(b)(2003) — 1 case

De'Andre Kendall v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(c) — 1 case

Billy James Matthews v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(d) — 88 cases

Terrance N. CARTER v. Rickey BELL, 279 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2009). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-106(d) (2006). Since Mr.”

Roy E. Keough v. State of Tennessee, 356 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2011).

Charles R. Johnson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).

Michael H. Palmer v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009).

Terry Lea Bunch v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(e) — 12 cases

Frank Lee Tate v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009).

Adrianne Kiser v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).

Gregory Robinson v. State of Tennessee - Concurring (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).

John C. Crim v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).

John Edward Lynch v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(f) — 90 cases

Terrance N. CARTER v. Rickey BELL, 279 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2009). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-106(d) (2006). Since Mr.”

Coleman v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011). “§ 40-30-102(c) also states that the Act “contemplates the filing of only one (1) petition for post-conviction relief,” allowing a petition that has been resolved to be reopened only under the limited circumstances specified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-117 . To avoid dismissal, a…”

Reid v. State, 197 S.W.3d 694 (Tenn. 2006). “*709 § 40-30-106® (providing for dismissal of post-conviction claims where the claims could have been — but were not — raised in a prior proceeding, or where the claims have been “previously determined”)- Furthermore, the grounds for re-opening a previously filed post-conviction…”

Mack A. O'Baner v. State of Tennessee, 159 S.W.3d 605 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).

Colemen v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(f)(2006) — 2 cases

Kenneth Gregory Allen v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).

Rodney Buford v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(f)(h) — 2 cases

Matthew Whitehair v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).

Charles Edgar Ledford v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(g) — 198 cases

Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106 (g) (2003). To rebut the presumption, the petition must contain “allegations of fact supporting each claim for relief set forth in the petition and allegations of fact explaining why each ground for relief was not previously presented in any earlier…”

Brandon Mobley v. State of Tennessee, 397 S.W.3d 70 (Tenn. 2013). “Mobley waived this due process claim, see Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-106(g), and that the stun belt issue is more properly considered in the context of Mr.”

Wiley v. State, 183 S.W.3d 317 (Tenn. 2006). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-106(g) (2003). A ground for relief is not waived, however, if it is “based upon a constitutional right not recognized as existing at the time of trial if either the federal or state constitution requires retroactive application of that right” or if…”

David Keen v. State of Tennessee, 398 S.W.3d 594 (Tenn. 2012). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106 (g) (2012). The statutory prohibition against executing intellectually disabled persons was in effect during both of Mr.”

Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-106(g) (2003); see, e.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(g)(1) — 9 cases

Dennis M. Dykes v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).

Larry Thomas Cochran v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021).

Roosevelt Morris v. Chris Brun, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).

Terrance B. Burnett v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).

Vernon Lee Ivey v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(g)(2) — 1 case

Corinio Pruitt v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(g)(2003) — 1 case

Marvin Anthony Matthews v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(g)(2006) — 1 case

Kevin McDougle v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(g)(2010) — 1 case

Christina Jones Thomas v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(g)(l) — 1 case

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(h) — 97 cases

Gdongalay P. Berry v. State of Tennessee, 366 S.W.3d 160 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “T.C.A. § 40-30-106(h) (2006). Although the petitioner’s failure to present the issue in the trial court precluded his ability to present evidence supporting his claim and although this court and the supreme noted that “meaningful review” was not possible because the issue was…”

Thomas v. State, 298 S.W.3d 610 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009).

Joseph Newton v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).

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.