The right to seek post-conviction relief is “use it or lose it.” The action must be filed within one year, with certain narrow exceptions, and only one petition may be filed.¹ The Tennessee Post-Conviction Procedure Act (the Act) provides a statutory basis for attacking a defendant’s final criminal convictions and sentences on the grounds that they are void or voidable due to the deprivation of any right afforded by the U.S. or Tennessee Constitutions.² Although frequently filed, post-conviction claims are rarely successful.

The Proper Cause of Action

First, a litigant or their attorney should determine if their claim is appropriate for a post-conviction proceeding. Tennessee also provides the separate Post-Conviction DNA and Fingerprint Analysis Acts, permitting offenders convicted of certain offenses to obtain court-ordered DNA or fingerprint analysis of evidence related to their convictions.³ Likewise, Tennessee provides “[a]ny person imprisoned or restrained of liberty” whose judgment is void or whose sentence has expired with the statutory right to seek habeas corpus relief.⁴ Individuals who have claims related to “subsequently or newly discovered evidence relating to matters which were litigated at the trial if the judge determines that such evidence may have resulted in a different judgment, had it been presented at the trial” may seek a writ of error coram nobis. ⁵

Petition/Pleadings

Once a litigant or their attorney has determined that filing a post-conviction petition is the proper course, the focus becomes the Act’s pleading requirements.⁶ The petition should be filed in the court in which the conviction or sentencing proceeding occurred, provided the court is a court of record.7 In the case of an attorney who has undertaken representation of a petitioner who has already filed a pro se petition, the petition should be scrutinized to ensure that it comports with the pleading requirements. In many cases, an amended petition should be filed. If an amended petition is filed, any claims not adopted from the original petition will likely be waived.⁸ If the attorney does not intend to file an amended petition, a written notice must be filed stating that no amended petition will be filed.⁹

A petition is limited to attacks on the judgment(s) from a single trial or proceeding. If the petitioner desires to attack the judgments from more than one trial or proceeding, additional petition(s) are required.¹⁰

The petition must state all known claims that the petitioner’s conviction or sentence is void or voidable due to the abridgment of a constitutional right.¹¹ Each claim must be supported by factual allegations, and the petition must explain why each claim was not presented in previous proceedings.¹² Care should be taken in identifying and stating every claim for relief, as claims which are raised for the first time at the hearing are subject to waiver.¹³ Likewise, claims which could have been, but were not, raised in an appeal of the conviction are presumed to be waived.¹⁴ Finally, a petition which fails to state a cognizable claim is subject to summary dismissal.¹⁵

The petition must identify any licensed attorney who has drafted the petition or has given assistance or advice regarding the petition.¹⁶ The petitioner must verify the petition under oath, and the verification must include a statement that all claims have been included.¹⁷ Counsel filing a petition or amended petition on behalf of a petitioner must file a certificate stating that the attorney has investigated the possible constitutional violations attendant to the conviction proceedings, has discussed the potential claims with the petitioner, has raised all non-frivolous claims, and is aware and has explained to the petitioner that any claims not raised are subject to waiver.¹⁸

If the petition is filed more than one year after the judgment of conviction became final, the petitioner must establish that the petition was filed pursuant to one of the statutory exceptions to the one-year limitations period or that due process requires tolling of the statute of limitations.¹⁹ The petition must state the specific legal basis and detailed factual allegations which compel due process tolling. The factual allegations must establish a prima facie case for due process tolling, and supporting documentation may, and often should, be attached to the petition.²⁰

After the petition is filed, the court will conduct a preliminary consideration of the petition in conjunction with a review of any related records and other documents. The court will dismiss the petition if it was not filed in the court of conviction, if it has been filed outside the statute of limitations without sufficient allegations to establish a prima facie case for tolling, or if another post-conviction petition challenging the same conviction is pending in any court. ²¹ The court will also dismiss a petition which fails to state a cognizable claim, although in the case of petitions filed pro se, the court may order the filing of an amended petition.²² The court may also appoint counsel, who may file an amended petition.²³

The state is required to file an answer to the petition, which may include allegations of affirmative defenses, and it may file a motion to dismiss.²⁴ The pro se petitioner or their counsel, if represented, should review the state’s filings to determine whether responsive pleadings and supporting documents should be filed.

Pre-Hearing Preparation and Procedure

To preserve meritorious claims, counsel should interview their client to acquire the petitioner’s version of events to support an amended post-conviction petition. Counsel should review the appellate record of the conviction proceedings and any subsequent opinions so that counsel is aware of the previously raised claims and their disposition. Counsel should interview relevant witnesses, usually the petitioner’s trial and appellate counsels, who would be called to testify at the post-conviction hearing. Expert witnesses called at trial should be interviewed if their trial testimony is implicated in the post-conviction petition. However, funding for expert witnesses is a discretionary decision of the post-conviction court in capital cases and will not be approved in non-capital cases.²⁵

No matter the quality of the client’s pro se petition, counsel should strongly consider filing an amended petition to avoid potential waiver due to violating the Rules of Appellate Procedure.²⁶ Pro se petitions rarely present issues in sufficient form to enable the court to consider the issues on the merits.²⁷ With the petitioner bearing the burden of proving their post-conviction claims by clear and convincing evidence, post-conviction counsel should review the pro se petition to ensure it meets the evidentiary burden.²⁸

Post-Conviction Hearing²⁹

Any claim for relief should be addressed at the post-conviction hearing. The most common claim in post-conviction petitions is the ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), which requires proof of deficient performance and prejudice resulting from counsel’s deficiency.³⁰ Common errors such as failing to call the appropriate witnesses and providing adequate transcripts for review cause petitions to fail because if the appropriate evidence is not presented to the post-conviction court, the court cannot adjudicate the underlying IAC claim.³¹

The petitioner must testify at the post-conviction hearing if the petition has raised “substantial questions of fact.”³² In cases where no substantial question of fact is raised, the petitioner’s testimony may assist the court in understanding the circumstances of the petitioner’s claim. If the petitioner does not testify, this leaves the trial counsel, who is likely called to testify, as the sole witness. Such circumstances leave the petitioner’s claim insufficiently supported because the petitioner does not testify to their interpretation of the events supporting their IAC claim.³³

Presenting the right witness can be dispositive of whether relief is granted. A common IAC claim is that trial counsel failed to investigate or present a piece of evidence properly.³⁴ A frequent stumbling block for those IAC claims is the evidence, witness, or affidavit not being presented at the post-conviction hearing. Accordingly, the post-conviction court cannot “speculate or guess” about what that witness might have testified to or what the evidence may have been.³⁵ This prohibition against speculation renders many petitioners who assert IAC unable to prove prejudice or deficiency.³⁶ When the denial of a petition that suffers from this fatal error is reviewed on appeal, the appellate is without a basis to conclude that the record preponderates against the post-conviction court’s findings.³⁷

Many IAC claims allege that trial counsel failed to impeach expert testimony properly. The expert witness should be presented at the post-conviction hearing so that the trial court can adjudicate the issue on the merits and avoid “speculat[ion] or guess[ing]” about what the witness would have said at trial.³⁸ Failure to call an expert witness to contravene the expert testimony at trial will often be fatal to any IAC claim involving failure to present defense expert testimony.³⁹

An IAC claim may implicate one or more of the petitioner’s previous attorneys. The attorneys implicated by the IAC claims should testify at the hearing. The Strickland standard is highly deferential to previous counsel’s reasonable strategy.⁴⁰ If an IAC claim involves the waiver of an issue at trial that is then compounded by appellate counsel’s alleged deficiency, trial and appellate counsel should be called to demonstrate the full circumstances and effects of the waiver.⁴¹

Petitions are also denied because the record is incomplete and prevents the post-conviction court adjudicating the issues on the merits. A common omission from the proof presented is the appropriate transcript of the hearing, portion of trial, or interrogation that underlies an IAC claim. It is the petitioner’s duty to provide a fair, accurate and complete record, and if the petitioner fails, then the arguments are waived, which can happen because of the omission of a hearing transcript, potentially exculpatory evidence not in the trial record, and testimony of an unavailable witness.⁴² It is pivotal for the petitioner to provide a complete record to avoid waiver of an otherwise meritorious issue.

Appeal

After the trial court has filed its final order, either party may appeal as a matter of right to the Court of Criminal Appeals.⁴³ A party, particularly the appellant, should review the appellate record once it is filed to ensure that it contains all transcripts, exhibits and pleadings or documents required for review of the issues or arguments the party intends to raise.⁴⁴ If the record of a previous appeal is needed for determination of the issues, the party may move for the appellate court to take judicial notice of the record of any previous appeal if a copy of the transcript or other records of the prior proceedings were not made exhibits at the post-conviction hearing.⁴⁵

An appellant should organize the appellate issues logically and concisely. However tempted a party may be to raise multiple arguments related to a single issue in the form of separate issues, appellate courts appreciate brevity and precision in organizing the issues.⁴⁶ Priority should be given to those issues which hold the greater opportunity for appellate relief, and counsel is not required to raise every possible appellate issue. The strategic decision regarding which issues will be raised on appeal rests with counsel, not the represented petitioner.⁴⁷ Issues which were not raised in the petition and at the hearing are generally waived on appeal and, therefore, should not be raised.⁴⁸

When framing the issues, the diligent appellant is mindful of the standard of review. A lower court’s findings of fact in a post-conviction case are binding on appeal, and an appellate court must defer to them “unless the evidence in the record preponderates against those findings.”⁴⁹ Thus, an appellant invites defeat by asking the appellate court to reweigh the evidence and reassess the credibility of the post-conviction hearing witnesses.⁵⁰ The stronger argument focuses on whether the evidence preponderates against the lower court’s factual findings.⁵¹ In contrast, an appellate court conducts a de novo review of a lower court’s application of law to its factual findings.⁵² Therefore, when a party takes issue with the lower court’s legal conclusions, argument for de novo review is apt.

Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 27 through 30 govern the content, optional appendix, filing and service, and form of an appellant’s brief and should be scrupulously followed as to the sections of the brief and the requirements for the contents of each section. An argument must contain “citations to the authorities and appropriate references to the record . . . relied on.”⁵³ “Issues which are not supported by argument, citation to authorities, or appropriate references to the record will be treated as waived[.]”⁵⁴ The form of the appellee’s brief is also prescribed by the rules. The appellant should review the appellee’s brief and file a reply brief addressing any arguments raised by the appellee, such as waiver of appellate review of an issue.⁵⁵ Reargument of the issues raised in the principal brief is not contemplated.⁵⁶ Inadequate briefs risk being stricken by the appellate court, with an assessment of costs against the offending party or attorney.⁵⁷

Oral argument is requested by noting the request on the cover of the appellate brief and may be requested by either party.⁵⁸ Oral argument is limited to twenty minutes per side, with the appellant having the opportunity to reserve in advance a portion of their time for rebuttal argument.⁵⁹ If matters arise at oral argument which a party believes or the party suggests may require submission of additional authorities or supplementation of the record, the diligent advocate will make an appropriate motion or submission after argument.⁶⁰

After CCA Opinion/Application to Tennessee Supreme Court

After the Court of Criminal Appeals issues its opinion, either party may file a petition for rehearing within 10 days of entry of the judgment. The circumstances in which the court will grant rehearing are, for the most part, narrowly prescribed and do not permit reargument of matters previously argued. ⁶¹ In practice, petitions to rehear are rarely granted.⁶²

A party dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Criminal Appeals may file an application for permission to appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court. The application must be filed within 60 days of the entry of the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals or within 60 days of an order denying a petition to rehear or a judgment on rehearing.⁶³ A party seeking permission to appeal should be mindful of the limited grounds upon which the Supreme Court generally considers such applications. A party seeking permission to appeal, therefore, is wisely selective in choosing and framing an issue or issues within those parameters. A party seeking permission to appeal should avoid merely regurgitating the contents of the brief the party filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals is a court of error correction, not policymaking.⁶⁴ In contrast, discretionary review by the Tennessee Supreme Court “is rarely granted solely for error-correction purposes.”⁶⁵ Thus, the effective advocate tailors the arguments to the court in which the case is currently pending. The responding party may file an answer opposing the application for permission to appeal within 15 days.⁶⁶

If appointed counsel for an indigent party does not desire to pursue discretionary review by the Supreme Court, counsel may move to withdraw within 14 days of entry of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ judgment. The rule governing withdrawal of counsel contains specific prerequisites to an order permitting withdrawal of counsel.⁶⁷

Conclusion

Post-conviction litigation is a challenging and necessary component of the criminal justice system. Full vetting of alleged constitutional violations in conviction proceedings assures confidence and finality in a petitioner’s convictions. Well-informed and well-prepared litigants and attorneys ensure that cases are presented properly and assist the trial and appellate courts in promptly and thoroughly resolving constitutional claims arising from conviction proceedings. |||

AMYE TANKERSLEY KING is licensed to practice law in Tennessee and received her law degree from the University of Tennessee College of Law. She is employed as a senior law clerk at the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

JAKE ARNING is a third-year law student at the University of Tennessee College of Law. He is employed as a law clerk at the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The opinions expressed are the authors’ own based upon their interpretations of existing statutory provisions and case law.

NOTES
1. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-30-101 to -122.
2. See id. § 40-30-102; Whitehead v. State, 402 S.W.3d 615, 631 (Tenn. 2013) (due process tolling). In limited circumstances, a previously adjudicated petition may be reopened. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-117; Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, App’x D (form motion to reopen post-conviction petition).
3. Id. §§ 40-30-301 to -413.
4. Id. § 29-21-101 (2018); see Tucker v. Morrow, 335 S.W.3d 116, 119-20 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009).
5. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105(b) (2018); see State v. Hart, 911 S.W.2d 371, 374 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); Cole v. State, 589 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979).
6. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-104; Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 § 5. A form petition and instructions are provided by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28, Appendix A.
7. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-104(a); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 4(A), (E). In the event the court in which the petitioner was convicted or sentenced is not a court of record, as with misdemeanor convictions, the petition should be filed “in the court of record having criminal jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred or the sentence was imposed.” Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-30-104(a); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § (4)(A), (E).
8. Jenkins v. State, No. M2019-01238-CCA-R3-PC, 2021 WL 979270,*10 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 16, 2021).
9. Id. § 40-30-107(b)(2).
10. Id. (b)(2), (c).
11.  Id. §§ 40-30-103, -104(d).
12. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-30-104(e); 40-30-106(d); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 § 5(E)(4). If the petitioner contends that he was unconstitutionally denied an appeal of the conviction proceedings, attention should be given to the provisions of the post-conviction statute and Supreme Court Rule 28 which prescribe the specific procedures for such claims. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-113; Tenn Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 9(D).
13. Id. § 40-30-110(c). In practice, post-conviction courts may permit proof and adjudicate claims raised without objection at the hearing, but the prudent litigant or practitioner will ensure consideration of all claims by including them in the petition. See generally Holland v. State, 610 S.W.3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2020) (recognizing the general rule that every issue must be stated in the petition but allowing that “Tennessee appellate courts may only consider issues that were not formally raised in the post-conviction petition if the issue was argued at the post-conviction hearing and decided by the post-conviction court without objection.”); Lane v. State, 316 S.W.3d 555, 561-62 (Tenn. 2010).
14. Id. § 40-30-110(f).
15. Id.
16. Id. § 40-30-104(f); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 § 5(E)(6).
17. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-104(d)-(e). In limited circumstances, the Petitioner may testify to the validity of the petition and its claims at the post-conviction hearing. Hinton v. State, No. W2022-01135-CCA-R3-PC, 2023 WL 8525148, *3-4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 8, 2023).
18. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, App’x C (form certification of counsel).
19. Id. § 40-30-102(b); Whitehead, 402 S.W.3d at 631 (citing Holland v. Florida, 530 U.S. 631 (2010)) (“A petitioner is entitled to due process tolling upon a showing (1) that he or she has been pursuing his or her rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his or her way and prevented timely filing.”).
20. Tenn. Code Ann. §§40-30-102(b), -104(e) (supporting documents); State v. Nix, 40 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tenn. 2001) (“Unsupported, conclusory or general allegations of mental illness will not be sufficient to require tolling and prevent summary dismissal.”) (overruled on other grounds by Reid ex rel. Martiniano v. State, 396 S.W.3d 478, 512 (Tenn. 2013)).
21. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106; Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 § 5(F)(1)-(2).
22. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(d), (f); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 §§ 5(F)(3), 6(B)(4)(a).
23. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(e); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 §6(B)(3)(a).
24. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-108(a), (c), (d); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 §6(C)(6).
25. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13 § 5(a)(1)-(2); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-14-207; See also Martiniano, 396 S.W.3d at 517 (Tenn. 2013); Davis v. State, 912 S.W.2d 689, 695 (Tenn. 1995).
26. See generally Tenn. R. App. P. 27.
27. See Blair v. State, 969 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (demonstrating the court waiving a petitioner’s claim because of defects in his post-conviction petition).
28. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-110(f) (“The petitioner shall have the burden of proving the allegations of fact by clear and convincing evidence.”).
29. Because the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act and Fingerprint Analysis Act are beyond the scope of this article, we will not address best practices for presenting those claims.
30. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (“First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the 6th Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.”).
31. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, No. W2016-00090-CCA-R3-PC, 2016 WL 6996409, *6-7 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2016) (holding that the petitioner failed to carry his burden to prove his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by clear and convincing evidence due to his failure to call the potential exculpatory witness at the post-conviction hearing); Price v. State, No. W2011-01737-CCA-R3-PC, 2013 WL 257059, *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 23, 2013) (holding that the petitioner’s failure to include the transcript of the evidentiary hearing underlying the petitioner’s claim waived review of his claim regarding the hearing).
32. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-110(a).
33. Thompson v. State, 2019 WL 6288817, at *17. The Petitioner did not testify at the post-conviction hearing, resulting in his failure to prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence.
34. See Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854, 873 (Tenn. 2008). The Petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to call a witness.
35. Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 757-58 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).
36. See Price, 2013 WL 257059 at *4 (holding that the petitioner’s failure to include the transcript of the evidentiary hearing underlying his claim barred the court from considering the merits).
37. See Chism v. State, No. W2005-00427-CCA-R3-PC, 2005 WL 3059433, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 7, 2005).
38. See Black, 794 S.W.2d at 757-58.
39. Johnson, 2016 WL 6996409 at at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2016) (holding petitioner could not establish prejudice because he did not present an expert witness to contravene the expert witness testimony presented at trial).
40. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 699.
41. McKaughan v. State, No. W2018-01035-CCA-R3-PC, 2021 WL 119307, *11 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 13, 2021). The trial court denied relief where the petitioner was not able to have appellate counsel testify at the conviction hearing.
42. See McAlister v. State, No. W2021-00045-CCA-R3-PC, 2021 WL 4449679, *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 29, 2021); Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b); Millan v. State, No. E2021-00366-CCA-R3-PC, 2023 WL 1489780, *33 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 3, 2023) (denying the petitioner relief due to the omission of the exculpatory evidence the petitioner relied on to support his claim of receiving the ineffective assistance of counsel); McKaughan, 2021 WL 119307, *11. The trial court denied the petitioner relief where the petitioner was not able to have appellate counsel testify at the conviction hearing.
43. Id.§ 40-30-116; Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 §10(B).
44. See, e.g., State v. Miller, 737 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) (“When the record is incomplete, or does not contain the proceedings relevant to an issue, this Court is precluded from considering the issue.”).
45. See, e.g., Helton v. State, 530 S.W.2d 781, 783 (Tenn. 1975).
46. See, e.g., Merriman v. Smith, 599 S.W.2d 548, 552 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979) (characterizing the appellants’ brief as “lengthy and exhausting” and consolidating the thirty issues raised into logical groupings for appellate consideration).
47. See, e.g., Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751-52 (1983) (“Experienced advocates since time beyond memory have emphasized the importance of winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on one central issue if possible, or at most on a few key issues.”); Carpenter v. State, 126 S.W.3d 879, 887 (Tenn. 2004) (discussing defense counsel’s prerogative to select the issues to be raised in an appeal of a defendant’s conviction).
48. See Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571, 599 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004); State v. Alvarado, 961 S.W.2d 136, 153 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
49. Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572, 578 (Tenn. 1997); see Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 456-57 (Tenn. 2001).
50. See, e.g., Joseph Jerome Griggs v. State, No. W2023-00100-CCA-R3-PC, 2023 WL 7487094, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 13, 2023), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2024); Michael E. Stewart v. State, No. E2015-00418-CCA-R3-PC, 2016 WL 3621440, at *23 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 29, 2016), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 19, 2016).
51. Henley, 960 S.W.2d at 578; see Fields, 40 S.W.3d at 456-57; e.g., Hugh Andrew Nicely v. State, No. M2006-01892-CCA-R3-PC, 2008 WL 544600, at *6-9 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 22, 2008) (determining, in an appeal by the state from a grant of post-conviction relief based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel, that the evidence preponderated against the lower court’s factual findings that trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that the petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient performance), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2008).
52. Fields, 40 S.W.3d at 457-58.
53. Id. at 27(a)(7)(a).
54. Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(b); see Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a) (7), (g); e.g., State v. Marvin Kale Ferguson, No. 03C01-9406-CR-00234, 1995 WL 414230, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 12, 1995) (consideration of issue was waived for failure to provide appropriate citations to the record and citations to authority).
55. See Tenn. R. App. P. 27(c); State v. Iesha Jones, No. E2022-01287-CCA-R3-CD, 2023 WL 4797734, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 27, 2023), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 11, 2024); see also Andre Terry v. State, No. E2023-00684-CCA-R3-PC, 2024 WL 2698932, at *8 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 24, 2024).
56. See Tenn. R. App. P. 27(c) (permitting “a brief in reply to the brief of the appellee”).
57. Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(a).
58. Tenn. R. App. P. 35(a). The Rules include provisions for continuance or waiver of oral argument after it has been requested. See id. at (a), (b); Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 8(d), (e).
59. Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 14.
60. See Tenn. R. App. P. 22 (motions), 24(g) (supplementation of the record), 27(d) (filing of supplemental authorities); Tenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 7 (motions).
61. Tenn. R. App. P. 39.
62. See, e.g., Larry Wayne Webb v. State, No. M2013-00444-CCA-R3-PC, 2013 WL 6844107 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 26, 2013), reh’g denied (Jan. 16, 2014) (rehearing will not be granted to relitigate issues previously argued). But see State v. Wayne L. Hughes, No. 01C01-9502-CC-00033, 1996 WL 278069 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 24, 1996) (per curiam) (order granting rehearing on the grounds that the court incorrectly determined a material fact and previously misconstrued the movant’s argument).
63. Tenn. R. App. P. 11.
64. See, e.g., State v. Cecil Cemontaie Burnice, No. M2023-00793-CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 1266905, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 26, 2024), app. for perm. app. filed (Tenn. Mar. 27, 2024).
65. Tenn. R. App. P. 11, Advisory Comm’n Cmts.; State v. West, 844 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Tenn. 1992) (stating that, in non-capital cases, the Tennessee Supreme Court functions “primarily as a law-development court, rather than as an error-correction court.”).
66. Tenn. R. App. P. 11(d).
67. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 14.