Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210 (2026)
Records and reports
✓ current as of May 2026
The post-conviction defender shall keep appropriate records and make annual reports concerning caseload, funding, staffing, and salaries to the post-conviction defender oversight commission; provided, however, that the post-conviction defender and the defender's staff shall not discuss specific details about any case with the members of the commission.
Acts 1995, ch. 510, § 1; T.C.A. § 40-30-310; Acts 2011, ch. 414, § 10.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 644
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2009).
Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2009). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f) was renumbered as Tenn.”
Nichols v. State, 90 S.W.3d 576 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210 (f) (1997). A trial court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal unless the evidence in the record preponderates against them.”
Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001). “” See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f). Nevertheless, this error by the Court of Criminal Appeals appears to be only one of imprecision in the use of its language, as it is clear from its opinion that the court applied the correct legal standard and properly concluded that the…”
Hicks v. State, 983 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “The preponderance of the evidence was the quantum of proof required prior to the adoption of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-210(0(1997). See, e.g., McGee v.”
State v. Honeycutt, 54 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2001). “Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210 (0 (1997), a post-conviction petitioner seeking relief for constitutional claims is required to prove allegations of fact "by clear and convincing evidence.”
State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999). “Under Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-210© (1997), a post-conviction petitioner seeking relief for constitutional claims is required to prove the allegations "by clear and convine- *462 ing evidence.”
State v. Wilson, 31 S.W.3d 189 (Tenn. 2000). “” 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.”
Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 2000). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f) (1997). Upon review, this Court will not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence.”
Owens v. State, 13 S.W.3d 742 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “(repealed 1995), rather than the revised Post-Conviction Procedure Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210 et seq. (1997).”
State v. Nix, 40 S.W.3d 459 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f) (“The petitioner shall have the burden of proving the allegations of fact by clear and convincing evidence.”
Scott v. State, 936 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “…1 . For post-conviction claims filed after May 10, 1995, the burden of proof is by clear and convincing evidence. See T.C.A. § 40-30-210©.”
State v. Blackmon, 78 S.W.3d 322 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “2d 674 (1984); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f). This court need not review both elements if the petitioner has failed to prove one element; i.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210(a) — 1 case
Scott v. State, 936 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “…1 . For post-conviction claims filed after May 10, 1995, the burden of proof is by clear and convincing evidence. See T.C.A. § 40-30-210©.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210(c) — 1 case
State v. Robert Moore (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f) — 136 cases
Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2009). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f) was renumbered as Tenn.”
Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001). “” See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f). Nevertheless, this error by the Court of Criminal Appeals appears to be only one of imprecision in the use of its language, as it is clear from its opinion that the court applied the correct legal standard and properly concluded that the…”
Nichols v. State, 90 S.W.3d 576 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210 (f) (1997). A trial court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal unless the evidence in the record preponderates against them.”
Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 2000). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f) (1997). Upon review, this Court will not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence.”
State v. Nix, 40 S.W.3d 459 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f) (“The petitioner shall have the burden of proving the allegations of fact by clear and convincing evidence.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f)(1997) — 5 cases
Hicks v. State, 983 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “The preponderance of the evidence was the quantum of proof required prior to the adoption of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-210(0(1997). See, e.g., McGee v.”
Taylor v. Myers, 345 F. Supp. 2d 855 (W.D. Tenn. 2003).
Hicks v. State (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
Paul Freeman v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
State v. Johnny Jones (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).
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.