Davis v. State

In Davis v. State, 912 S.W.2d 689 (Tenn. 1995), the court noted that, in this state, there is no rule or statute that entitles a non-capital post-conviction petitioner state funded expert assistance. Id. at 695. In denying the funding of experts, the court observed the distinction between providing indigent defendants the basic tools of an adequate defense at trial and on direct appeal as opposed to those at the post-conviction level. Consistent with previous analyses of this distinction, our supreme court reiterated: a direct appeal is the primary avenue for review of a conviction and sentence. Once the process goes beyond the trial and direct appeal as of right stage, the state has no duty to duplicate the legal arsenal that may be privately retained by a criminal defendant in a continuing effort to reverse his conviction. (Id. at 696.)