Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-118 (2026)
Promulgation of rules
✓ current as of May 2026
The supreme court may promulgate rules of practice and procedure consistent with this part, including rules prescribing the form and contents of the petition, the preparation and filing of the record and assignments of error for simple appeal and for delayed appeal in the nature of a writ of error, and may make petition forms available for use by petitioners. The supreme court shall develop a form which shall be available without cost to a prisoner in the prison and other places of detention, and shall also be available without cost to any potential petitioner in the office of the clerk of any court of record having criminal jurisdiction.
Acts 1995, ch. 207, § 1; T.C.A. § 40-30-218.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: State v. Swanson, 680 S.W.2d 487 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984).
State v. Swanson, 680 S.W.2d 487 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). “In his first issue, appellant contends that the trial court’s non-compliance with the mandates of T.C.A. § 40-30-118(b) warrants a reversal of the trial court’s dismissal of appellant’s post-conviction petition.”
Swanson v. State, 749 S.W.2d 731 (Tenn. 1988). “” Finally, T.C.A. § 40-30-118 requires the trial court to state its reasons for its disposition of a petition.”
Rickman v. State, 972 S.W.2d 687 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “In effect, the appellant challenges the post-conviction court's compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-118 (b)(1990). Tenn.”
Tracy Rose Baker v. State of Tennessee, 417 S.W.3d 428 (Tenn. 2013). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-118 (2012). 6 . In an effort to combat the widespread confusion that exists concerning the differences between civil and criminal contempt, the Oregon Legislature enacted statutes aptly renaming the two types of contempt “remedial” and "punitive,”…”
Roy E. Keough v. State of Tennessee, 356 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2011). “at § 40-30-118. On November 17, 1995, this Court adopted Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28, which is titled “Tennessee Rules of Post-Conviction Procedure.”
Pike v. State, 164 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 2005). “1998); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-118 (2003) (recognizing this Court’s authority to promulgate “rules of practice and procedure” for post-conviction proceedings).”
Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 932 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “See T.C.A. § 40-30-118(b). Regarding the performance of counsel, the trial court concluded: Petitioner’s original counsel did give him [the petitioner] bad advice, when they advised him his plea of nolo contendere could not be used in subsequent proceedings.”
State v. Higgins, 729 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “Finally, the appellant contends that the court erred in its failure to state in its final order its findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each issue asserted as required by T.C.A. § 40-30-118(b). The appellant is correct in that the findings of fact and…”
Davis v. State, 673 S.W.2d 171 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). “Upon final disposition of the petitions, in any event, he will make the findings and conclusions on each ground presented as required by T.C.A. 40-30-118. State v. Gilley, supra; Parton v.”
Lundy v. State, 752 S.W.2d 98 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “After the evidentiary hearing the trial judge entered an order in which he set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with T.C.A. § 40-30-118. He found that grounds (A) and (B) were issues which had been raised on direct appeal and decided adversely to the…”
Sneed v. State, 942 S.W.2d 567 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “The petitioner also complains that the trial court did not state on the record or set forth in its order its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by T.CA § 40-30-118(b) (1990 Repl.) (repealed 1995).”
State v. Oates, 698 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985). “In his brief before this Court defendant submits as issues that (A) the court did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by T.C.A. § 40-30-118(b); (B) petitioner did not waive his right to present the grounds set out in his post-conviction petition; (C)…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-118(a): 2 cases
Sills v. State, 884 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
State v. Carter, 669 S.W.2d 707 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-118(b): 14 cases
State v. Swanson, 680 S.W.2d 487 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). “In his first issue, appellant contends that the trial court’s non-compliance with the mandates of T.C.A. § 40-30-118(b) warrants a reversal of the trial court’s dismissal of appellant’s post-conviction petition.”
Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 932 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “See T.C.A. § 40-30-118(b). Regarding the performance of counsel, the trial court concluded: Petitioner’s original counsel did give him [the petitioner] bad advice, when they advised him his plea of nolo contendere could not be used in subsequent proceedings.”
State v. Higgins, 729 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “Finally, the appellant contends that the court erred in its failure to state in its final order its findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each issue asserted as required by T.C.A. § 40-30-118(b). The appellant is correct in that the findings of fact and…”
Sneed v. State, 942 S.W.2d 567 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “The petitioner also complains that the trial court did not state on the record or set forth in its order its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by T.CA § 40-30-118(b) (1990 Repl.) (repealed 1995).”
State v. Oates, 698 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985). “In his brief before this Court defendant submits as issues that (A) the court did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by T.C.A. § 40-30-118(b); (B) petitioner did not waive his right to present the grounds set out in his post-conviction petition; (C)…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-118(b)(1990): 1 case
Rickman v. State, 972 S.W.2d 687 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “In effect, the appellant challenges the post-conviction court's compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-118 (b)(1990). Tenn.”
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.