Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-111 (2026)
Final disposition of petitions - Compliance reports
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) If the court finds that there was such a denial or infringement of the rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment void or voidable, including a finding that trial counsel was ineffective on direct appeal, the court shall vacate and set aside the judgment or order a delayed appeal as provided in this part and shall enter an appropriate order and any supplementary orders that may be necessary and proper. Costs shall be taxed as in criminal cases.
- (b) Upon the final disposition of every petition, the court shall enter a final order, and except where proceedings for delayed appeal are allowed, shall set forth in the order or a written memorandum of the case all grounds presented, and shall state the findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each ground.
- (c) Where the petitioner has court-appointed counsel, the court may require petitioner's counsel to file a verified statement of dates and times counsel has consulted with petitioner, and this statement shall become a part of the record.
- (d) The court shall rule within sixty (60) days of conclusion of the proof. 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 thirty (30) days. Final disposition of a capital case must be made within one (1) year of the filing of the petition. Copies of all orders extending deadlines in capital cases shall be sent to the administrative office of the courts. The administrative office of the courts shall report annually to the general assembly on the compliance by the courts within the time limits established for capital cases and the reason for noncompliance, if any.
- (e)
- (1) By December 1, 2009, and every December 1 thereafter, the administrative office of the courts shall complete the compliance report required by subsection (d) and submit the report to the chief clerks of the house of representatives and the senate and the chairs of the criminal justice committee of the house of representatives and the judiciary committee of the senate.
- (2) The administrative office of the courts, in consultation with the district attorneys general conference, the office of the post-conviction defender and the district public defenders conference, shall review the annual compliance report to determine if the time period for the final disposition of post-conviction petitions in capital cases set out in subsection (d) is a realistic time period for providing a thorough and meaningful review of the claims and making a final disposition of them. If it is determined that the statutory period for final disposition of the petitions is not realistic, the administrative office of the courts shall determine a realistic and attainable time period and submit it to the legislature as provided in subdivision (e)(1).
- (3) The review and determination of a realistic time period for the conclusion of post-convictions petitions required by subdivision (e)(2) shall be made by December 1, 2009, and every December 1 thereafter.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 64, s 49, eff. 3/29/2021.
Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 345, s 57, eff. 5/10/2019.
Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 236, s 38, eff. 4/19/2013.
Acts 1995, ch. 207, § 1; T.C.A. § 40-30-211; Acts 2009 , ch. 594, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 183
cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: State v. West, 19 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn. 2000).
State v. West, 19 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn. 2000). “We accepted review in this case to resolve the apparent conflict between Rule 52(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-111 (1990) (repealed 1995), which limits the scope of review in post-conviction proceedings.”
Rhoden v. State, 816 S.W.2d 56 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-112(a). 18 . Tenn.”
Bell v. Cone, 543 U.S. 447 (2005). “The state trial court held each of respondent's claims barred by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-111 (1990), which limited the grounds that may be raised on collateral review to those not waived or previously determined in previous proceedings.”
Caruthers v. State, 814 S.W.2d 64 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-30-111 and-112; Givens v.”
Harris v. State, 947 S.W.2d 156 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “03C01-9201-CR-00014, held that sufficiency of the evidence, generally, may implicate the due process rights of the appellant and is therefore a cognizable claim in post-conviction proceedings pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-105 (1990). However, issues that have been…”
Cyrus Deville Wilson v. State of Tennessee, 367 S.W.3d 229 (Tenn. 2012). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-211(b), now section 40-30-111(b), provided that "[u]pon the final disposition of every petition, the court shall enter a final order, and except where proceedings for delayed appeal are allowed, shall set forth in the order or a written…”
House v. State, 911 S.W.2d 705 (Tenn. 1995). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-112 (1990). 14 . Section One, Public Chapter 207, 1995 Public Acts says that "[a] ground for relief is previously determined if a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on the merits after a full and fair hearing.”
Rickman v. State, 972 S.W.2d 687 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “[7] With respect to any additional factual allegations raised in the instant petition, this court has previously held that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is a single "ground for relief" as contemplated by Tenn.”
State v. McClintock, 732 S.W.2d 268 (Tenn. 1987). “T.C.A. §§ 40-30-111; 40-30-112. See Parton v.”
Coker v. State, 911 S.W.2d 357 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-104(a)(10). Yet, as rare as it is for trial courts to consider possible constitutional errors not raised in the petition, nothing in the statutory scheme precludes it.”
Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 915 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. §§ 40-30-111 and 40-30-112. A ground for relief is said to have been “waived” when the petitioner “knowingly and understanding^ failed to present it for determination in any proceeding before a court of competent jurisdiction in which the ground could have been presented.”
Gary Bradford Cone v. Ricky Bell, Warden, 359 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2004). “The trial court dismissed the second petition as barred by the successive petition restrictions of Tennessee’s post-conviction statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-111 (1990) (since repealed), holding that all the grounds raised in the second petition were barred because they either…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-111(a) — 17 cases
Jose Rodriguez a.k.a. Alex Lopez v. State of Tennessee, 437 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2014).
Hodges v. Bell, 548 F. Supp. 2d 485 (M.D. Tenn. 2008).
State of Tennessee v. Corey Forest (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
Harold Wayne Nichols v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
State of Tennessee v. Michael L. Caudle (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-111(b) — 80 cases
Cyrus Deville Wilson v. State of Tennessee, 367 S.W.3d 229 (Tenn. 2012). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-211(b), now section 40-30-111(b), provided that "[u]pon the final disposition of every petition, the court shall enter a final order, and except where proceedings for delayed appeal are allowed, shall set forth in the order or a written…”
Kejuan King v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
State of Tennessee v. Quincy D. Scott (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
Marshall G. Tate v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
Tracy D. Boyd, Jr. v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-111(c) — 1 case
David Edward Niles v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-111(d) — 4 cases
Kevin Farrell Wells v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021).
Mario Hernandez Castillo v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
John Brunner v. State (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).
Juan Alfonzo Hill v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005).
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.