Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-209 (2026)
Salary
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) The post-conviction defender shall be paid a salary equal to the amount established by law for district public defenders.
- (b) Full-time assistant post-conviction defenders shall be compensated in an amount set by the post-conviction defender in compliance with the assistant public defender's pay schedule and shall be paid from funds appropriated for that purpose.
- (c) All payments of the salary of the post-conviction defender and employees of the office and payments for other necessary expenses of the office from state funds appropriated therefor shall be considered as being for a valid public purpose.
- (d) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any limitations on compensation and step increases that apply to district public defenders and assistant public defenders for the period of time beginning from June 16, 2003, to June 30, 2004, and June 25, 2009, to June 30, 2010, shall also apply to post-conviction defenders and assistant post-conviction defenders. In the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2004, and July 1, 2010, and in subsequent fiscal years, salary increases pursuant to the pay schedule prescribed in this section shall not include time of service between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2004, and between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010.
- (e) The salary increase provided by this section and suspended by subsection (d) for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, shall be reinstated effective July 1, 2017. For purposes of determining the appropriate salary classification pursuant to this section, credible service for the time period of July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, shall be included.
Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 461,s 9, eff. 7/1/2017.
Acts 1995, ch. 510, § 1; T.C.A. § 40-30-309; Acts 2009, ch. 531, § 28.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Waller v. Bryan, 16 S.W.3d 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Waller v. Bryan, 16 S.W.3d 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “, T.C.A. § 40-30-209 and Supreme Court . Rule 28.”
Burnett v. State, 92 S.W.3d 403 (Tenn. 2002). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-209(a) (1997). After having thoroughly examined the record, which included Burnett’s original pro se petition, accompanying memorandum, and guilty plea transcript, the trial court concluded that Burnett was not entitled to relief.”
Waite v. State, 948 S.W.2d 283 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-30-209 , -210. Otherwise, the petitioner must be afforded the privilege of presenting proof in support of his allegation of a constitutional deprivation.”
Michael Douglas Hughes v. State of Tennessee, 77 S.W.3d 801 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-209 . Accordingly, we must reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the instant petition and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Victor James Cazes v. State, 980 S.W.2d 364 (Tenn. 1998). “Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-209(c) (1997) provides that a petitioner may withdraw a petition at any time prior to the hearing without prejudice to any rights to refile.”
Ronald Bradford Waller v. Melinda Ryan & WM. H. Cox, III (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “, T.C.A. § 40-30-209 and Supreme Court Rule 28.”
Gregory Bonds v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “3 Section 40-30-209 was renumbered to 40-30-109 in 2003.”
Johnny O. Clark v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-209 (a) (1997). The State’s response to the petition was filed on February 10, 2000.”
David Felts v. State (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “See Tenn. Code Ann. §40-30-209 (a) (Supp. 1996).”
Nehad Sobhi Abdelnabi v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “3d at 407 (citing T.C.A. § 40-30-209(a) (1997) renumbered to § 40-30-109(a) in 2003).”
Carlos Key v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “However, the Petitioner did not raise those issues at trial 3 At the time Pewitt was decided, this statute was codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-209(a) (1997). -7- or on direct appeal of his convictions.”
Kenneth Gregory Allen v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “3 Section 40-30-209 was renumbered to 40-30-109 in 2003.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-209(a) — 13 cases
Burnett v. State, 92 S.W.3d 403 (Tenn. 2002). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-209(a) (1997). After having thoroughly examined the record, which included Burnett’s original pro se petition, accompanying memorandum, and guilty plea transcript, the trial court concluded that Burnett was not entitled to relief.”
Nehad Sobhi Abdelnabi v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “3d at 407 (citing T.C.A. § 40-30-209(a) (1997) renumbered to § 40-30-109(a) in 2003).”
Carlos Key v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “However, the Petitioner did not raise those issues at trial 3 At the time Pewitt was decided, this statute was codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-209(a) (1997). -7- or on direct appeal of his convictions.”
Johnny O. Clark v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-209 (a) (1997). The State’s response to the petition was filed on February 10, 2000.”
Larry W. Anderson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-209(b) — 2 cases
Waller v. Bryan, 16 S.W.3d 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “, T.C.A. § 40-30-209 and Supreme Court . Rule 28.”
Ronald Bradford Waller v. Melinda Ryan & WM. H. Cox, III (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “, T.C.A. § 40-30-209 and Supreme Court Rule 28.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-209(c) — 2 cases
Victor James Cazes v. State, 980 S.W.2d 364 (Tenn. 1998). “Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-209(c) (1997) provides that a petitioner may withdraw a petition at any time prior to the hearing without prejudice to any rights to refile.”
Larry C. Strong 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.