# FILED
Au gust 28, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON DECEMBERSESSION, 1996 STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9507-CC-00204 ) Appellee, ) ) ) CHESTER COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JOHN FRA NKLIN MU RCHISON VAUGHN MIXON, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Direct Appeal/Writ of Error Co ram ) Nobis)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : GEORGE MORTONGOOGE JOHN KNOX WALK UP Distric t Public Defender Attorney Gen eral and Repor ter PAMELA J. DREW ERY W ILLIAM DAVID BRIDGERS Assistant D istrict P ublic Defender Assistant Attorney Gener al 26th Judicial District 450 James Robertson Parkway 227 West Baltimore St. Nashvil le, TN 37243 Jackson, TN 38301 JERRY WOODALL Distric t Attorney General DON ALLEN Assistant D istrict A

ttorney P. O. Box 2825 Jackson, TN 3830 1
OPINION FILE D ________________________ REVERSED AN D REMAND ED JERRY L. SMITH, JUDG E1 W e note t hat al though i t appears from the r ecord t hat Appel lant ’s pet it ion was f il ed beyo nd the one yea r st atut e of l imit ati ons appl icabl e to wr it s of error coram nobis, our Tennessee Supreme C ou rt h as ind ica ted tha t sin ce the sta tute of lim itatio ns is a n a ffir m ativ e d ef en se , T en ne ss ee Ru le of C ivil Proce dure 8.03 requ ires th at it be s pec ifically plead or is de em ed w aived
. Sa nds v. State , 903 S.W . 2d 297, 299 (Tenn. 1995). Here, t he Stat e fai led to plea d stat ute ofli mitati ons, ther efore t his i ssue is waive d. -2- 

## OPINION

On Nove mb er 16, 19 94, Ap pellant V aug hn M ixon wa s found guilty by a Chester County CircuitCourt j ury ofatt empted rape, att empted ince st, sexual battery, pub lic intoxication, and evading arrest. As a Ran ge II offend er, Appell ant was sent enced to t en yearsforatt empted rape, eightyearsfor atte m pte d in ce st, fo ur ye ars for s exu al b atte ry, th irty da ys fo r pu blic int oxi cati on, and el even months, twenty-ni ne days f or evadi ng arr est. The tri al courtorder ed the sent ences to be serv ed concurrentl y. Appell ant appeal ed his con victio n a nd sen ten ce on Ap ril 18 , 19 95 . In a dd ition to h is dir ec t ap pe al, Appell ant f il ed a peti ti on for a wri t oferror

coram nobison December 22, 1995, ba se d o n t he r ec an t ed t es t i mon y oft he v i ct i m. 1 The tri al court deni ed the petition, finding tha t as a m atter of law, reca nted tes timon y could n ot supp ort the gra nt of a pe tition for a writ of error cora m n obis. Ironically, the trial court als o h eld tha t if the victim ’s re ca nte d te stim on y ha d b ee n p res en ted at tria l, it would hav e resul ted i n a differ ent j udgment. Thi s Court c onsoli dated t he direc t app eal a nd th e de nial of th e pe tition for a writ of er ror co ram nob is.

After a revi ew of t he record, we r emand this cause for further proceedings.-3- At tr ial , AudreyMixon, Appell ant’ s fourteen- year- old daught er t esti fi ed tha t on Ap ril 16 , 19 94 , sh e w as drivin g h er fa the r ba ck h om e fro m a frie nd ’s house when her fatherasked her ifshe had ever seen hi m naked. Lat er, he asked her t o pull offthe main road, t urn down a di rt road and st op. Afterthey stopped, Appell ant t urned on t he radi o, puthis han d on her i nner t high and started sl idi ng itup her l eg whil e making an obscene stat ement indi cati ng that he wanted t o engage in sex wi th hi s daughter . Atthi s point , Ms. Mixon j umped out ofthe t ruck and s tarted r unning down t he road. As she was j umping out of the t ruck, Appell ant grabbed her cl othi ng and sai d he was onl y j oking.

At th e heari ng on the wr itof er ror c oram nobis, Ms. Mix on recant ed the test imony t hat her

fat her had t ri ed to rape her. She acknowled ged her aff idav itwhich s tat ed thatshe was upsetand tr ied t o run away fro m her fat her because th ey had been f ight ing abouther boyfri end who her f atherdid not want herto dat e. She al so stat ed thatshe was t ryi ng to hel p her mother “get ri d of”her f atherbecause her mother was di vorci ng her f atherand her mother wan ted his trailer.

Te nne sse e C ode An nota ted S ectio n 40 -26- 105 (199 0) pro vides that: Upon a showing bythe def endant t hat he was wi thout faul t i n fai li ng to present certai n evi dence at t he proper tim e, a writ o f erro r co ram no bis will lie fo r su bs eq ue ntly or newly di scovered evidence rel ating t o matters which were l it igat ed at t he tr ial ifthe j udge deter mines that such evi dence may have result ed in a di ff erent jud gm en t, ha d it b ee n p res en ted at th e tria l. Before a defendantis ent it led t o a new tr ial based on newl y di scover ed evidence the defendant must show that : 1) he act ed with reasonable di li gence-4-

to d isco ver th e e vide nc e p rior to trial; 2 ) the ne wly d isco vere d e vide nc e is ma terial to the issue of the de fenda nt’s guilt; and 3) the evidenc e wo uld have likely ch ang ed th e jury’s verd ict. State v. Goswick , 656 S. W .2d 355, 358-59 (Tenn. 1983) . The deci sion whet her t o grantor denya peti ti on for a wri t of erro r cora m nob is rests within th e so und discre tion o f the trial c ourt. State v. Ha rt , 911 S .W .2d 37 1, 375 (Ten n. Crim . App. 1 995 ).

Recanted t esti mony may supportthe grant ofa wri t oferror coram nob is, there fore th e trial co urt’s find ing to the c ontra ry wa s erro neo us. See id. ; State v. Her ndon , No. 03 C01-9303-CR-00098, 1994 W L 176969, at*2 (Tenn. Crim . App . Ma y 11, 1 994 ); State v. Ashby , No. 2, 1985 W L 4227, at*4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 27, 1985); . The t est f or gra nti ng a new tr ial in cas es involv ing recant ed test imony i s as fol lows: 1) t he tr ial judge i s reasonabl y wel l sat isf ied thatthe t esti mony give n by a mater ial wit ness was f alse and thatthe new test imony i s tr ue; 2) the def endant was reasonablydil igentin di scover ing t he new evide nce or su rprise d by fa lse tes timo ny, or u nab le to kn ow of the falsity unti l afterthe t ri al; and 3) t he jury mighthave r eached a di ff erentconcl usion had the tru th be en to ld. Ashby , 198 5 W L 42 27, a t *5 (T atum , J., diss entin g). Itis c lear

thatbefor e a tr ial judge r ules on a peti ti on for a wri t oferror

coram no bis , he or s he m us t de term ine the cre dib ility of th e w itne sse s w ho tes tify in sup port o f the a ccu sed ’s writ. Ha rt , 911 S. W .2d at375. I n Ha rt , this Cou rt remanded the cas e fora deter minati on of whet her a wi tness’ aff idav itwas tr ue or fals e. Id. Because the tri al court er roneousl y fo und thatrecant ed test imony wa s no t a pro per b asis for writ o f error c oram nob is relief, be cau se it failed to m ake the n ece ssa ry findin gs d iscu sse d ab ove , and bec aus e we are u nab le to as se ss th e d em ea no r an d cr ed ibility o f the affia nt, w e re vers e a nd rem an d th is-5-

m atter fo r furthe r proc eed ings and finding s by th e trial jud ge c ons isten t with thi s opini on.

____________________________________ JER RY L
. SMI TH, JUD GE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOE B. JONE S, PRES I DI NG JU DGE

___________________________________ JOSE PH M. TI PTON, JUD GE