Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-312 (2026)
Analysis results - Dismissal of petition - Order for hearing
✓ current as of May 2026
If the results of the post-conviction DNA analysis are not favorable to the petitioner, the court shall dismiss the petition, and make further orders as may be appropriate. If the results of the post-conviction DNA analysis are favorable, the court shall order a hearing, notwithstanding any provisions of law or rule of court that would bar the hearing as untimely, and thereafter make orders as are required or permitted by the rules of criminal procedure or part 1 of this chapter.
Acts 2001, ch. 444, § 1; T.C.A. § 40-30-412.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Wiley v. State, 183 S.W.3d 317 (Tenn. 2006).
Wiley v. State, 183 S.W.3d 317 (Tenn. 2006). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-312 . The Act does not expressly mandate post-conviction relief in the form of a new trial upon a finding that the DNA analysis is in any way favorable to the petitioner.”
Blake v. State, 909 A.2d 1020 (Md. 2006). “2005) (noting that mandatory and permissive DNA testing is to be considered by court "[ajfter notice to the prosecution and a hearing”); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-312 (2003 & Supp.2005) (noting that if DNA analysis is favorable to a petitioner "the court shall order a hearing,…”
Bondurant v. State, 208 S.W.3d 424 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-312. The Petitioners now appeal to this Court, alleging that their DNA analysis is incomplete and therefore they are now entitled to additional serological testing.”
Smith v. Lee (M.D. Tenn. 2022). “§ 40-30-312 ) (emphasis added).) According to Smith, the parties agreed to DNA analysis, and the DNA analysis was performed by a laboratory that satisfied the statutory standards.”
Corey Kennerly v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-312 . If the results are favorable, the trial court shall order a hearing and enter such orders as is required or permitted by “the rules of criminal procedure3 or part 1 of this chapter.”
Clark Beauregard Waterford III v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “T.C.A. § 40-30-312. The State asserts that the scope of appellate review of the post-conviction court’s denial of relief is limited.”
Morris Jason Pepper v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “3d at 56 ; see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-312 (mandating a hearing only after DNA evidence produces a result favorable to a petitioner).”
Willie Tom Ensley v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-312, this petition is dismissed.”
Willie Andrew Cole v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “See T.C.A. § 40-30-312. The post-conviction court has considerable discretion in determining whether to grant relief under the Act, and the scope of appellate review is limited.”
Tamaine Works v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “See T.C.A. § 40-30-312. The post-conviction court has considerable discretion in determining whether to grant relief under the Act, and the scope of appellate review is limited.”
Guevara v. Perry (M.D. Tenn. 2024). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-312 . These circumstances cast a different light on Petitioner’s desire for a stay of this habeas case.”
Phillip M. Mullins v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “See T.C.A. § 40-30-312. On review of the denial of a petition, we afford “considerable discretion” to the post- conviction court’s decision.”
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.