Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-109 (2026)
Prehearing procedure
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) The court shall review the case after the district attorney general's response is filed. If, on reviewing the petition, the response, files, and records, the court determines conclusively that the petitioner is entitled to no relief, the court shall dismiss the petition. The order of dismissal shall set forth the court's conclusions of law. If the court does not dismiss the petition, the court shall enter an order setting an evidentiary hearing. The order of dismissal or the order setting an evidentiary hearing shall be entered no later than thirty (30) days after the filing of the state's response. The evidentiary hearing shall be within four (4) calendar months of the entry of the court's order. The deadline shall not be extended by agreement, and the deadline may be extended only by order of the court based upon a finding that unforeseeable circumstances render a continuance a manifest necessity. An extension shall not exceed sixty (60) days.
- (b) Discovery is not available in a proceeding under this section except as provided under Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- (c) The petitioner may withdraw a petition at any time prior to the hearing without prejudice to any rights to refile, but the withdrawn petition shall not toll the statute of limitations set forth in § 40-30-102.
Acts 1995, ch. 207, § 1; T.C.A. § 40-30-209.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 97
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: House v. State, 911 S.W.2d 705 (Tenn. 1995).
House v. State, 911 S.W.2d 705 (Tenn. 1995). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-111 (1990). In its original form, the Act provided for the scope of the hearing to include all grounds except those previously determined, which occurred "if a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on the merits after a full and fair hearing.”
Swanson v. State, 749 S.W.2d 731 (Tenn. 1988). “Under T.C.A. § 40-30-109, a “petition [must be] competently drafted” before the court may order dismissal because the records, pleadings, and files in a case conclusively show that petitioner is entitled to no relief.”
Swift v. Campbell, 159 S.W.3d 565 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “We held that the photographs were not discoverable based on Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-109(b) and Tenn. S.”
State v. Prince, 781 S.W.2d 846 (Tenn. 1989). “Citing T.C.A. § 40-30-109 the trial judge found the petition was competently drafted and that the pleadings, files and records of the court conclusively showed that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.”
Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “Appellant cites the trial judge’s refusal to grant a stay of execution in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-30-109(b) as indicative of this disrespect.”
Givens v. State, 702 S.W.2d 578 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985). “T.C.A. § 40-30-109, supra. While we affirm the trial judge’s denial of the postconviction relief petition, we admonish the trial judge to require responsive pleadings of the district attorney general pursuant to T.”
Fredrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 927 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “T.C.A § 40-30-109(a)(l). See also Swanson, 749 S.”
State v. Mullins, 767 S.W.2d 668 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “Further, the dismissal here falls far short of the commands found in T.C.A. § 40-30-109(a)(l). Moreover, as stated in T.”
Hodges v. Bell, 548 F. Supp. 2d 485 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-109. Under the habeas corpus statutes, a party can petition the presiding Court to issue subpoenas.”
Mayes v. State, 671 S.W.2d 857 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). “T.C.A. 40-30-109. Upon final disposition of the petitions, in any event, he will make the findings and conclusions on each ground presented as required by T.”
Steadman v. State, 806 S.W.2d 780 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). “In effect, the trial judge dismissed the petition without the benefit of the pleadings and record protections contemplated by T.C.A. § 40-30-109(a)(l), which allows for a summary dismissal.”
Martucci v. State, 872 S.W.2d 947 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-109. Stokely v. State, 4 Tenn.Cr.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-109(a) — 33 cases
Mayes v. State, 671 S.W.2d 857 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). “T.C.A. 40-30-109. Upon final disposition of the petitions, in any event, he will make the findings and conclusions on each ground presented as required by T.”
State of Tennessee v. Corey Forest (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
Reginold C. Steed v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
Andre Benson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
Harold Wayne Nichols v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-109(a)(1) — 2 cases
Lavato v. State (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
Billy J. Coffelt v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-109(a)(2) — 1 case
House v. State, 911 S.W.2d 705 (Tenn. 1995). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-111 (1990). In its original form, the Act provided for the scope of the hearing to include all grounds except those previously determined, which occurred "if a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on the merits after a full and fair hearing.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-109(a)(l) — 5 cases
House v. State, 911 S.W.2d 705 (Tenn. 1995). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-111 (1990). In its original form, the Act provided for the scope of the hearing to include all grounds except those previously determined, which occurred "if a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on the merits after a full and fair hearing.”
Fredrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 927 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “T.C.A § 40-30-109(a)(l). See also Swanson, 749 S.”
Givens v. State, 702 S.W.2d 578 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985). “T.C.A. § 40-30-109, supra. While we affirm the trial judge’s denial of the postconviction relief petition, we admonish the trial judge to require responsive pleadings of the district attorney general pursuant to T.”
State v. Mullins, 767 S.W.2d 668 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “Further, the dismissal here falls far short of the commands found in T.C.A. § 40-30-109(a)(l). Moreover, as stated in T.”
Steadman v. State, 806 S.W.2d 780 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). “In effect, the trial judge dismissed the petition without the benefit of the pleadings and record protections contemplated by T.C.A. § 40-30-109(a)(l), which allows for a summary dismissal.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-109(b) — 5 cases
Swift v. Campbell, 159 S.W.3d 565 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “We held that the photographs were not discoverable based on Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-109(b) and Tenn. S.”
Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “Appellant cites the trial judge’s refusal to grant a stay of execution in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-30-109(b) as indicative of this disrespect.”
Braylen Bennett v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
Nikolaus Johnson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
Delvin Allison v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-109(c) — 10 cases
Corey Kennerly v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
Andre Benson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
State of Tennessee v. Douglas Marshall Mathis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
State of Tennessee v. Stacy L. Curry (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021).
Jimmy Lee Whitmire 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.