Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-203 (2026)

Establishment - Composition

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) On July 1, 2011, there is created a post-conviction defender oversight commission. The members of the commission appointed under this section shall have a commitment to the constitutional rights of all individuals. In making these appointments, the appointing authorities shall strive to ensure that the membership of the commission appropriately reflects the racial and geographic diversity of the state. Members of the commission are not required to be attorneys, but any member who is an attorney may not be a current district attorney general or assistant district attorney general, a current public defender or assistant public defender, or a sitting judge. The commission is composed of the following nine (9) members:
- (1) Three (3) members appointed by the governor;
- (2) Three (3) members appointed by the speaker of the senate; and
- (3) Three (3) members appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives.

(b) The term of office of each member of the commission is four (4) years. A vacancy occurring among the members of the commission before the expiration of a term shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointments. An appointment to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of a term is for the remainder of the unexpired term.

(c) To stagger the terms of the commission members, the initial term shall be as follows:
- (1) The initial term of the members appointed by the governor shall be two (2) years;
- (2) The initial term of the members appointed by the speaker of the senate shall be three (3) years; and
- (3) The initial term of the members appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives shall be four (4) years.

Acts 1995, ch. 510, § 1; T.C.A. § 40-30-303; Acts 2011 , ch. 414, § 6.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 166 cases, 1992–2015 · leading case: Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 4× “" See also Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-220(a) (requiring this Court to set an execution date upon affirming a conviction and sentence of death on direct appeal) (emphasis added); Tenn.”

Young v. State, 101 S.W.3d 430 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-203 (1997). As the trial court in this case recognized, the fact that a petitioner’s present mental condition bars execution does not render the prisoner’s conviction or sentence void or voidable.”

Hicks v. State, 983 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “11 (c)(5), nor did the court specifically ask whether the plea was the result of conversations with his attorney and the district attorney and not the product of force or coercion. Tenn. R.Crim. P. 11(d). However, these are supervisory rather than constitutionally based…”

Frazier v. State, 303 S.W.3d 674 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 2× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-203, -204(c)-(d) (2006).”

Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-203 (1997 Repl.) [previously codified at Tenn.”

Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 4× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-203 (1997). As the trial court in this case recognized, the fact that a petitioner's present mental condition bars execution does not render the prisoner's conviction or sentence void or voidable.”

Arnold v. State, 143 S.W.3d 784 (Tenn. 2004). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-203 (1997). If the facts alleged, taken as true, fail to state a colorable claim, the petition shall be dismissed.”

Denton v. State, 945 S.W.2d 793 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “At the hearing on the petition, the trial judge found counsel to have been effective at the trial and denied his petition. Appellant appeals this decision to this Court.”

Cox v. State, 53 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-30-203, -206(f) (1997).”

State v. McKnight, 51 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-203 (1999); see also Van Tran v.”

State v. Wilson, 31 S.W.3d 189 (Tenn. 2000). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-203 (1997). As part of the post-conviction procedure, a defendant may be entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing in which the petitioner has the right to testify.”

Dean v. State, 59 S.W.3d 663 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 2× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-203 (1997). The State argues that the trial court properly determined that the error violated a statutory right which is not a cognizable ground for post-conviction relief and that an erroneous jury instruction may not be challenged in a post-conviction…”

Show all 166 citing cases →

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-203(l) — 1 case

State of Tennessee v. William Charles Howse (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).

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.