Writ of Error Coram Nobis
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
Hodge v. State, No. E2022-00911-CCA-R3-ECN, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2023).
A writ of error coram nobis is an “extraordinary procedural remedy,” filling only a “slight gap into which few cases fall.” State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661, 672 (Tenn. 1999) (citation omitted). Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-26-105(b) provides that coram nobis relief is available in criminal cases as follows:
The relief obtainable by this proceeding shall be confined to errors dehors the record and to matters that were not or could not have been litigated on the trial of the case, on a motion for a new trial, on appeal in the nature of a writ of error, on writ of error, or in a habeas corpus proceeding. Upon a showing by the defendant that the defendant was without fault in failing to present certain evidence at the proper time, a writ of error coram nobis will lie for 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.
The petition must show that there is a “reasonable basis” by which the court could conclude that the results of the proceedings “might have been different” if the evidence had been presented at trial. State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 527 (Tenn. 2007).
The contents of a petition for writ of error coram nobis are of primary importance. Nunley v. State, 552 S.W.3d 800, 826 (Tenn. 2018). The petition must state with specificity the substance of the evidence the petitioner claims is newly discovered. Id. at 829. “[C]oram nobis petitions with inadequate allegations are susceptible to summary dismissal on the face of the petition, without discovery or an evidentiary hearing.” Id. at 831.
Skinner v. State, No. W2022-00563-CCA-R3-ECN, p. 16 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 10, 2023).
The decision to deny a petition for writ of error coram nobis on the grounds of subsequently or newly discovered evidence rests within the sound discretion of trial court, which this court will not disturb absent an abuse of discretion. T.C.A. § 40-26-105.
Brown v. State, No. W2022-00043-CCA-R3-ECN, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 8, 2023).
Generally, a decision whether to grant a writ of error coram nobis rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Payne, 493 S.W.3d at 484 (citation omitted). If a petition for coram nobis relief is granted, the judgment of conviction will be set aside and a new trial will be granted. Id. at 485 (quotation omitted). “[C]oram nobis petitions with inadequate allegations are susceptible to summary dismissal on the face of the petition, without discovery or an evidentiary hearing.” Nunley, 552 S.W.3d at 831.
Garner v. State, No. M2021-01396-CCA-R3-PC, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2023).
The decision to grant or deny such a writ rests within the sound discretion of the court. Jones v. State, 519 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1974); see Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 915, 921 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988), overruled on other grounds by State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999).
Moody v. State, No. M2021-00605-CCA-R3-ECN (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 20, 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).
Bailey v. State, No. W2021-01535-CCA-R3-ECN, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 21, 2022).
Although the decision to grant or deny coram nobis relief rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, see Vasques, 221 S.W.3d at 527-28, “[w]hether due process considerations require tolling of a statute of limitations is a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness.” Nunley, 552 S.W.3d at 830 (citation omitted).
Thomas v. State, No. W2021-00851-CCA-R3-ECN, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 20, 2022).
Generally, a decision whether to grant a writ of error coram nobis rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. See State v. Hart, 911 S.W.2d 371, 375 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
State of Tennessee v. Roby, Jr. and Allen, No. M2020-00301-CCA-R3-CD, p. 23 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 23, 2022).
Generally, a decision whether to grant a writ of error coram nobis rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. See State v. Hart, 911 S.W.2d 371, 375 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
Douglas v. State of Tennessee, No. W2021-01401-CCA-R3-ECN, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 18, 2022).
The decision to grant or deny a petition for writ of error coram nobis rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Hall, 461 S.W.3d 469, 496 (Tenn. 2015). If a petition for coram nobis relief is granted, the judgment of conviction will be set aside and a new trial will be granted. Payne, 493 S.W.3d at 485. “[C]oram nobis petitions with inadequate allegations are susceptible to summary dismissal on the face of the petition, without discovery or an evidentiary hearing.” Nunley, 552 S.W.3d at 831.
Ward v. State of Tennessee, No. W2021-00952-CCA-R3-ECN, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 10, 2022).
Although the decision to grant or deny coram nobis relief rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, see Vasques, 221 S.W.3d at 527-28, “[w]hether due process considerations require tolling of a statute of limitations is a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness,” Nunley, 552 S.W.3d at 830 (citation omitted).
Keller v. State of Tennessee, No. W2021-00123-CCA-R3-ECN (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 18, 2022).
Whether due process considerations require tolling of a statute of limitations [for filing a petition for a writ of error coram nobis] is a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. Harris, 301 S.W.3d at 145.
Bland v. State of Tennessee, No. W2021-00897-CCA-R3-ECN (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 18, 2022).
The decision to grant or to deny a petition for the writ of error coram nobis on its merits rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Ricky Harris, 301 S.W.3d 141, 144 (Tenn. 2010) (citing State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 527-28 (Tenn. 2007)).
Patterson v. State of Tennessee, No. M2020-00720-CCA-R3-ECN (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 24, 2022).
The writ of error coram nobis is a post-conviction mechanism that has a long history in the common law and the State of Tennessee. See, e.g., State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 524-26 (Tenn. 2007). The writ “is an extraordinary procedural remedy . . . [that] fills only a slight gap into which few cases fall.” State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661, 672 (Tenn. 1999). Generally, a decision whether to grant a writ of error coram nobis rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. See State v. Hart, 911 S.W.2d 371, 375 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
Haley v. State of Tennessee, No. W2021-00777-CCA-R3-ECN (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 16, 2022).
The decision to grant or deny a petition for writ of error coram nobis rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Hall, 461 S.W.3d 469, 496 (Tenn. 2015).
Boatfield v. State of Tennessee, E2020-01427-CCA-R3-ECN (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 14, 2022).
It is well-established that the writ of error coram nobis “is an extraordinary procedural remedy . . . [that] fills only a slight gap into which few cases fall.” State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661, 672 (Tenn. 1999). The decision to grant or to deny a petition for the writ of error coram nobis on its merits rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Ricky Harris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 141, 144 (Tenn. 2010) (citing State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 527-28 (Tenn. 2007)). We, therefore, review for abuse of discretion. See State v. Workman, 111 S.W.3d 10, 18 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-26-105(b) provides, in pertinent part:
Upon a showing by the defendant that the defendant was without fault in failing to present certain evidence at the proper time, a writ of error coram nobis will lie for subsequently or newly discovered evidence relating to matters which are litigated at the trial if the judge determines that such evidence may have resulted in a different judgment, had it been presented at trial.
“As a general rule, subsequently or newly discovered evidence which is simply cumulative to other evidence in the record . . . will not justify the granting of a petition for the writ of error coram nobis when the evidence, if introduced,” might not have resulted in a different outcome. State v. Hart, 911 S.W.2d 371, 375 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (citations omitted); see also Vasques, 221 S.W.3d at 525-28 (noting that proper standard of review is whether the proffered evidence “might have” resulted in a different outcome rather than whether it “would have” resulted in a different one).
In order to qualify as newly discovered evidence, “the proffered evidence must be (a) evidence of facts existing, but not yet ascertained, at the time of the original trial, (b) admissible, and (c) credible.” Nunley v. State, 552 S.W.3d 800, 816 (Tenn. 2018). In addition, the coram nobis petition must show why the newly discovered evidence “could not have been discovered in a more timely manner with the exercise of reasonable diligence” and how the newly discovered evidence, had it been admitted at trial, “may have resulted in a different judgment.” Id. The statute presupposes that the newly discovered evidence would be admissible at trial. Wilson v. State, 367 S.W.3d 229, 235 (Tenn. 2012); see also State v. Hart, 911 S.W.2d 371, 375 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (rule requiring coram nobis court to find that newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a different judgment “presupposes that the evidence . . . would be admissible pursuant to the applicable rules of evidence . . . .”).
