petition for writ error in Tennessee

2025In fact, our supreme court has been clear that coram nobis petitioners “should assume they will get no hearing and that the fate of their case turns on whether the petition demonstrates on its face that they are entitled to the relief sought, including tolling of the statute of limitations.” Id. at 411 n.18 (emphasis added). 3 Our supreme court has recognized that because “a petition for writ of error coram nobis is untimely unless filed within one year of the time a judgment becomes final in the trial court, it is clear that a timely petition for writ of error coram nobis will almost always b

2025“Under most circumstances, the motion to stay should be granted,” and “[a]ny appeal from the trial court’s decision on the petition for writ of error coram nobis is to be consolidated with the defendant’s pending appeal as of right.” Id. (citations omitted).

2015A petition for writ of error coram nobis should recite: “(a) the grounds and nature of the newly discovered evidence; (b) why the admissibility of the newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a different judgment if the evidence had been admitted at the previous trial; (c) the petitioner was without fault in failing to present the newly discovered evidence at the appropriate time; and (d) the relief sought by the petitioner.” Hart, 911 S.W.2d at 374 - 75 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2013Id. at 375 . -7- The grounds for seeking a petition for writ of error coram nobis are not limited to specific categories, as are the grounds for reopening a post-conviction petition.

2025A petitioner is “without fault” if he or she is able to show that “the exercise of reasonable diligence would not have led to a timely discovery of the new information[.]” State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 527 (Tenn. 2007). - 17 - In Tennessee, a petition for writ of error coram nobis may be dismissed on the face of the petition without the need for discovery, an evidentiary hearing, or notification to the opposing party.

2020Id. at 527-28 . -4- A petition for writ of error coram nobis must be dismissed as untimely filed unless filed within one (1) year of the date on which the petitioner’s judgment of conviction became final in the trial court.

2018A petition for writ of error coram nobis must contain the following: “(1) the grounds and the nature of the newly discovered evidence; (2) why the admissibility of the newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a different judgment had the evidence been admitted at the previous trial; (3) the petitioner was without fault in failing to present the newly discovered evidence at the appropriate time; and (4) the relief sought by the petitioner.” Freshwater v. State, 160 S.W.3d 548, 553 (Tenn. Crim.

2015A petition for writ of error coram nobis must contain the following: “(1) the grounds and the nature of the newly discovered evidence; (2) why the admissibility of the newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a different judgment had the evidence been admitted at the previous trial; (3) the petitioner was without fault in failing to present the newly discovered evidence at the appropriate time; and (4) the relief sought by the petitioner.” Freshwater v. State, 160 S.W.3d 548, 553 (Tenn. Crim.

2013See Harris, 301 S.W.3d at 147 (finding that Harris was on notice that he should file his coram nobis claim at the time of his motion to reopen post-conviction proceeding, yet he waited an additional 25 months before filing the petition for writ of error coram nobis).

2012It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to grant or deny a petition for writ of error coram nobis, Harris, 301 S.W.3d at 144 (citing State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 527-28 (Tenn.2007)), and therefore, our review of this issue is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion.

2012She stated that when the Tennessee Supreme Court filed Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001), it gave the petitioner an opportunity to seek relief through a petition for writ of error coram nobis.

2011In determining what sort of opportunity is “reasonable,” we have determined that “ ‘[i]dentification of the precise dictates of due process requires consideration of both the governmental interests involved and the private interests affected by the official action.’ ” Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100, 102 (Tenn.2001) (quoting Burford, 845 S.W.2d at 207 ) (addressing the tolling issue in the context of the statute of limitations on a petition for writ of error coram no-bis); see also Sands, 903 S.W.2d at 301 .

2014App. LEXIS 176 , at **65-66 (Knoxville, Mar. 10, 2008), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 2008) (concluding that this court may not treat a petition for post-conviction relief as one requesting relief under the writ of error coram nobis); see also Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587, 591-594 (Tenn. 2003) (stating that “it will rarely, if ever, be appropriate for an appellate court to sua sponte treat a [petition for post- conviction relief] as a petition for writ of error coram nobis” because doing so deprives the State of an opportunity to file an appropriate response in the trial court and deprives

2013See Harris, 102 S.W.3d at 594 n.9 (holding that a petitioner who is seeking to have the trial court consider both a motion to reopen and a petition for writ of error coram nobis as possible avenues for relief “must be required to actively pursue both in the trial court”).

2005The state challenged the petition on this ground in the coram nobis court, as well, and the court denied the state’s motion to dismiss the petition on the principle that “a court should resolve issues on the merits that strike at the heart of the judicial system.” Specifically, the coram nobis court concluded that it had “a duty to address on the merits an allegation that a prosecutor prompted a witness to lie.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-2-103 (2000) (instructing that a petition for writ of error coram nobis must be filed within one year of the date of final judgment); Workman v. State, 41 S.W.

2004Id. -2- In the present case, the petition for writ of error coram nobis filed in 2003 was clearly outside the statute of limitations, as the judgment of the trial court became final sometime before 1999.1 Moreover, the petitioner’s contention is that the trial court gave erroneous jury instructions.

2013Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 915, 921 (Tenn. Crim.

2013Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 915, 921 (Tenn. Crim.

2023The statute of limitations for filing a petition for writ of error coram nobis is one year, see T.C.A. § 27-7-103; Mixon, 983 S.W.2d at 670 , and “compliance with the timely filing requirement in Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-7-103 is an essential element of a coram nobis claim,” see Nunley v. State, 552 S.W.3d 800, 828 (Tenn. 2018) (citations omitted).

2022The statute of limitations for filing a petition for writ of error coram nobis is one year, see T.C.A. § 27-7-103; Mixon, 983 S.W.2d at 670 , and “compliance with the timely filing requirement in Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-7-103 is an essential element of a coram nobis claim,” see Nunley v. State, 552 S.W.3d 800, 828 (Tenn. 2018) (citations omitted).

2025“The decision to grant or deny a petition for writ of error coram nobis on its merits rests within the trial court’s sound discretion.” Payne v. State, 493 S.W.3d 478, 484 (Tenn. 2016).

2022“The decision to grant or deny a petition for writ of error coram nobis on its merits rests within the trial court’s sound discretion.” Payne v. State, 493 S.W.3d 478, 484 (Tenn. 2016).

2026State v. Hall, 461 S.W.3d 469, 496 (Tenn. 2015).

2024State v. Hall, 461 S.W.3d 469, 496 (Tenn. 2015).

2017Aug.19, 2011), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Oct. 18, 2011); see also Dellinger, 279 S.W.3d at 291 n.7 (holding that claims of actual innocence based upon newly discovered scientific evidence may be raised in a petition for post- conviction relief, but noting that claims of actual innocence not based on new scientific evidence should be raised in a petition for writ of error coram nobis or in an application for executive clemency).

2013App., Jackson, Jan. 3, 1997); see also Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282, 291 (Tenn. 2009) (“Claims of actual innocence not based on new scientific evidence may be brought in a petition for writ of error coram nobis, within one year after the judgment of conviction in the trial court becomes final, or later if the petitioner shows that due process precludes application of the statute of limitations.

2013See id. (“Because Petitioner raised the issue of the statute of limitations by requesting that it be tolled on due process grounds, he cannot reasonably contend that he was prejudiced because he was not given fair notice of the defense or (continued...) -4- The statute of limitations for a petition for writ of error coram nobis is one year from the date the judgment becomes final in the trial court.

2011In determining what sort of opportunity is “reasonable,” we have determined that “ ‘[i]dentification of the precise dictates of due process requires consideration of both the governmental interests involved and the private interests affected by the official action.’ ” Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100, 102 (Tenn.2001) (quoting Burford, 845 S.W.2d at 207 ) (addressing the tolling issue in the context of the statute of limitations on a petition for writ of error coram no-bis); see also Sands, 903 S.W.2d at 301 .

2022Finally, the petitioner cannot obtain relief via a petition for writ of error coram nobis because his petition is time barred, see id. § 27-7-103, and because “a guilty plea may not be collaterally attacked pursuant to the coram nobis statute,” Frazier v. State, 495 S.W.3d 246, 248 (Tenn. 2016).

2020We conclude that the error coram nobis court properly dismissed the petition for writ of error coram nobis on its face without an evidentiary hearing. “[T]he coram nobis statute is not available as a procedural mechanism for collaterally attacking a guilty plea.” Frazier v. State, 495 S.W.3d 246, 253 (Tenn. 2016).

2015Cole v. State, 589 S.W.2d 941, 941-43 (Tenn. Crim.

2010Cole v. State, 589 S.W.2d 941, 941-43 (Tenn.Crim.App.1979); see also State v. Lingerfelt, 687 S.W.2d 294, 295 (Tenn.Crim.App.1984); Ward, § 32:34. 22 Mr. Harris asserts that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing because of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105 (c)’s requirement that “[t]he issue shall be tried by the court without the intervention of the jury.” He insists that the reference to issues being “tried by the court” can only mean that all issues raised in a petition for writ of error coram nobis must be “tried.” Mr. Harris is placing far too much weight on this language.

2003The intermediate appellate court’s reliance upon Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 319 (Tenn.1995), as authority for its action was misplaced.

2003See Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 319 (Tenn. 1995) (holding that a trial court has discretion to treat a pleading according to the relief sought).

2016Although this Court held in Wlodarz v. State, 361 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2012), that guilty pleas may be subject to a collateral attack via a petition for writ of error coram nobis, we now overturn that decision.

2016Although this Court held in Wlodarz v. State, 361 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn.2012), that guilty pleas may be subject to a collateral attack via a petition for writ of error co-ram nobis, we now overturn that decision.

2008June 6, 1997) (stating that facts known by missing witnesses did “not make the witnesses material, or that, if produced, their testimony would have been relevant and, therefore, admissible”); cf. Newsome v. State, 995 S.W.2d 129, 135 (Tenn.Crim.App.1998) (stating that a court, when addressing a petition for writ of error coram nobis on the basis of newly discovered evidence, must find “that the newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a different judgment had it been presented at the trial,” and that this “rule presupposes that the evidence would be admissible pursuant to the applicable

2003Id.

2006The court may grant a petition for writ of error coram nobis if it determines that if the newly discovered evidence had been introduced at trial, “there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that the result of the proceeding would have been different.” State v. Workman, 111 S.W.3d 10, 17-18 (Tenn. Crim.

2005The court may grant a petition for writ of error coram nobis if it determines that if the newly discovered evidence had been introduced at trial, “there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that the result of the proceeding would have been different.” State v. Workman, 111 S.W.3d 10,17-18 (Tenn. Crim.

2004HAYES, JUDGE 2 Although it is not the basis for our holding in this case, we note that courts are skeptical of recantations in sexual abuse cases involving children for, in such cases, “recantation is a recurring phenomenon.” Terry Stephens, No. M2001-00023-CCA-R3-CO (quoting United States v. Provost, 969 F.2d 617, 621 (8 th Cir. 1992)). -6-

2001GLENN, JUDGE 4 Although it is not the basis for our determination in this matter, we note that courts are skeptical of recantations in sexual abuse cases involving children for, in such cases, “recantation is a recurring phenom enon.” United States v. Pro vost, 969 F.2d 617, 621 (8th Cir. 1992 ) (citations omitted). -13-

2011In 2003, she filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that *749 new evidence existed that proved her innocence, as well as complaining of violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and juror misconduct that occurred at trial which necessitated a hearing and ultimately a new trial.

2011In 2003, she filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that *749 new evidence existed that proved her innocence, as well as complaining of violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and juror misconduct that occurred at trial which necessitated a hearing and ultimately a new trial.

2025Id. at 673 n.17; see also State v. Housler, 193 S.W.3d 476, 494 (Tenn. 2006) (citing Mixon, 983 S.W.2d at 666 ).

2025See Cannon, 254 S.W.3d at 308 ; Alley, 882 S.W.2d at 821 .

2018With respect to the record on direct appeal, it is the appellant’s “duty to prepare a record which conveys a fair, accurate[,] and complete account of what transpired with respect to the issues forming the basis of the appeal.” State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Tenn. 1993).

2013See id. at 535 .