WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 256

Appeal and Review - As enacted, authorizes criminal defendants who plead guilty, best interest, or no contest to also petition for a writ of error coram nobis based on evidence that was, through no fault of the defendant, unknown to the defendant at the time of the plea. - Amends TCA Title 40.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Todd Gardenhire

Tennessee allows defendants with guilty pleas to petition for case review based on evidence they unknowingly lacked, expanding post-conviction relief pathways and reopening finality concerns.

Comp. became Pub. Ch. 282
#appealandreview
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 256

Legislative bill overview

SB 256 expands post-conviction relief in Tennessee by allowing defendants who have entered guilty, best interest, or no contest pleas to petition for a writ of error coram nobis when evidence unknown to them at the time of plea emerges. This remedy—traditionally available only in limited circumstances—adds a pathway for defendants to challenge convictions based on newly discovered evidence that was not their fault to discover initially.

Why this is important

This change affects finality and fairness in the criminal justice system. It potentially allows individuals convicted through plea agreements to reopen cases if exculpatory or mitigating evidence surfaces, which could address wrongful convictions. However, it also creates uncertainty for prosecutors and victims by reopening cases thought to be resolved.

Potential points of contention

  • Burden on courts: Expanded petition eligibility could flood appellate courts with cases, increasing backlog and costs
  • Victim impact: Victims who accepted plea outcomes may face retrials or case reopenings years later, reopening trauma
  • Definition ambiguity: The standard for what constitutes evidence "unknown through no fault of the defendant" could be litigated extensively and applied inconsistently
  • Prosecutor concerns: State's ability to achieve finality and plan resources diminishes if cases can be reliably reopened
  • Innocence vs. mitigation: Unclear whether the statute covers only exculpatory evidence or also mitigating evidence that might reduce sentences

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.