Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (2026)
Duties
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is the primary responsibility of the post-conviction defender to represent, without additional compensation, any person convicted and sentenced to death in this state who is without counsel and who is unable to secure counsel due to indigency or determined by a state court with competent jurisdiction to be indigent, for the purpose of instituting and prosecuting collateral actions challenging the legality of the judgment and sentence imposed against that person in state court, and who the court determines requires the appointment of counsel.
- (b) Under limited circumstance where the post-conviction defender determines that it is in the interest of justice, the post-conviction defender may represent, without additional compensation, any person on a direct appellate review of the conviction of a capital crime if that person is without counsel and is unable to secure counsel due to indigency, or is determined by a state court with competent jurisdiction to be indigent and where that state court has determined competent counsel is unavailable.
- (c) The post-conviction defender shall represent, without additional compensation, any person convicted and sentenced to death in this state who is without counsel and who is unable to secure counsel due to that person's indigency or is determined by a state court of competent jurisdiction to be indigent for the purpose of instituting and prosecuting collateral actions challenging the legality of the judgment and sentence imposed against the person in the federal courts in this state, the United States court of appeals for the sixth circuit, and the United States supreme court, only to the extent that compensation for representation and reimbursement for expenses is provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3006A or any other non-state funded source.
- (d) The post-conviction defender shall also:
- (1) Maintain a clearinghouse of materials and a repository of briefs prepared by the post-conviction defender to be made available to public defenders and private counsel who represent indigents charged with or convicted of capital crimes;
- (2) Provide continuing legal education training to public defenders, assistant post-conviction defenders and to private counsel representing indigents in capital cases, as resources are available;
- (3) Provide consulting services to all attorneys representing defendants in capital cases on a non-case-specific basis; and
- (4) Recruit qualified members of the private bar who are willing to provide representation in state death penalty proceedings.
- (e) Where the post-conviction defender determines that it is in the interest of justice, the post-conviction defender may represent, without additional compensation, a death sentenced inmate, who, at the completion of both state post-conviction proceedings and federal collateral review, remains under a sentence of death, if the individual is presently represented by the post-conviction defender or if the individual is not currently represented by the post-conviction defender but is unable to secure counsel due to indigency, during clemency proceedings before the Tennessee board of parole and the governor and in proceedings to determine whether the death sentenced inmate is competent to be executed.
Acts 1995, ch. 510, § 1; 2002, ch. 713, § 1; T.C.A. § 40-30-306.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 321
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001).
Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (g) (1997). Because the petitioner has previously waived the substantive constitutional issue before us now, the Post-Conviction Procedure Act does not permit him, outside of the exceptions listed in the statute, to assert that issue in any…”
State v. Townes, 56 S.W.3d 30 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-206(f), (h) (1997).”
Ricky Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (g)(2) (1997) (ground not barred by waiver if the “failure to present the ground was the result of state action in violation of the federal or state constitution.”
Arnold v. State, 143 S.W.3d 784 (Tenn. 2004). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-206(d) (1997). Bare allegations that a constitutional right has been violated and mere conclusions of law are not sufficient to warrant further proceedings.”
Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-206(b) (“[i]f 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 .”
State v. Nix, 40 S.W.3d 459 (Tenn. 2001). “”); Tenn.Code Ann. §40-30-206® (“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.”
Burnett v. State, 92 S.W.3d 403 (Tenn. 2002). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (d) (1997). A bare allegation that a constitutional right has been violated and mere conclusions of law shall not be sufficient to warrant any further proceedings.”
Kendricks v. State, 13 S.W.3d 401 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “See T.C.A. § 40-30-206. When the court dismissed the original petition, the petitioner’s remedy was to appeal the dismissal, not file an amended petition.”
Blair v. State, 969 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (a). The prescribed form for petitions requires that the grounds for relief must be specified and that a petitioner must set out the facts to establish a “colorable claim.”
Leslie v. State, 36 S.W.3d 34 (Tenn. 2000). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (1997). 4 .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.”
Carter v. State, 958 S.W.2d 620 (Tenn. 1997). “1994) (Repealed); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (h) (1996 Supp.”
Sexton v. State, 151 S.W.3d 525 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “I am aware that any ground not raised shall be forever barred by the application of T.C.A. § 40-30-206(g), or its predecessor provision, and have explained this to Ms.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(a) — 13 cases
Holton v. State, 201 S.W.3d 626 (Tenn. 2006).
Butler v. State, 92 S.W.3d 387 (Tenn. 2002).
Harris v. State, 996 S.W.2d 840 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
Stephen Lynn Hugueley v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
McElhaney v. State (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(b) — 23 cases
Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-206(b) (“[i]f 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 .”
Church v. State, 987 S.W.2d 855 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
Carothers v. State, 980 S.W.2d 215 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
Neely v. State, 34 S.W.3d 879 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).
Crafton v. Van Den Bosch, 196 S.W.3d 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(c) — 2 cases
State v. Robert Rayford (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State v. Michael South (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(d) — 21 cases
Arnold v. State, 143 S.W.3d 784 (Tenn. 2004). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-206(d) (1997). Bare allegations that a constitutional right has been violated and mere conclusions of law are not sufficient to warrant further proceedings.”
Hutcherson v. State, 75 S.W.3d 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
Blair v. State, 969 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (a). The prescribed form for petitions requires that the grounds for relief must be specified and that a petitioner must set out the facts to establish a “colorable claim.”
Sepulveda v. State, 90 S.W.3d 633 (Tenn. 2002).
Harris v. State, 996 S.W.2d 840 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(e) — 6 cases
Sepulveda v. State, 90 S.W.3d 633 (Tenn. 2002).
Waite v. State, 948 S.W.2d 283 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
Terry Charlton v. State, 987 S.W.2d 862 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
Kenneth R. Griffin v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002).
Stephen W. Murphy v. State (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(f) — 28 cases
Arnold v. State, 143 S.W.3d 784 (Tenn. 2004). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-206(d) (1997). Bare allegations that a constitutional right has been violated and mere conclusions of law are not sufficient to warrant further proceedings.”
Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-206(b) (“[i]f 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 .”
State v. Townes, 56 S.W.3d 30 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-206(f), (h) (1997).”
Kendricks v. State, 13 S.W.3d 401 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “See T.C.A. § 40-30-206. When the court dismissed the original petition, the petitioner’s remedy was to appeal the dismissal, not file an amended petition.”
Blair v. State, 969 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (a). The prescribed form for petitions requires that the grounds for relief must be specified and that a petitioner must set out the facts to establish a “colorable claim.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(g) — 46 cases
Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (g) (1997). Because the petitioner has previously waived the substantive constitutional issue before us now, the Post-Conviction Procedure Act does not permit him, outside of the exceptions listed in the statute, to assert that issue in any…”
State v. Townes, 56 S.W.3d 30 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-206(f), (h) (1997).”
Sexton v. State, 151 S.W.3d 525 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “I am aware that any ground not raised shall be forever barred by the application of T.C.A. § 40-30-206(g), or its predecessor provision, and have explained this to Ms.”
Kendricks v. State, 13 S.W.3d 401 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “See T.C.A. § 40-30-206. When the court dismissed the original petition, the petitioner’s remedy was to appeal the dismissal, not file an amended petition.”
Leslie v. State, 36 S.W.3d 34 (Tenn. 2000). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (1997). 4 .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.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(g)(1) — 2 cases
State v. James Carter (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).
Kenneth Alan Steele v. State (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(g)(2) — 2 cases
Ricky Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (g)(2) (1997) (ground not barred by waiver if the “failure to present the ground was the result of state action in violation of the federal or state constitution.”
State v. William Johnson (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(h) — 19 cases
Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (g) (1997). Because the petitioner has previously waived the substantive constitutional issue before us now, the Post-Conviction Procedure Act does not permit him, outside of the exceptions listed in the statute, to assert that issue in any…”
Carter v. State, 958 S.W.2d 620 (Tenn. 1997). “1994) (Repealed); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (h) (1996 Supp.”
Leslie v. State, 36 S.W.3d 34 (Tenn. 2000). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (1997). 4 .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.”
Blair v. State, 969 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206 (a). The prescribed form for petitions requires that the grounds for relief must be specified and that a petitioner must set out the facts to establish a “colorable claim.”
Hodges v. Bell, 548 F. Supp. 2d 485 (M.D. Tenn. 2008).
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.