1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

SHIN NY LEV ERE TTE v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 93-04844; 93- 04845 W. Mark Ward, Judge

No. W2006-00235-C CA-R 3-CO - F iled October 26, 2006

The Petitioner, Shinny L ever ette, appea ls the lower court’s denial of his pe tition for writ of er ror coram nobis relief. The State has filed a moti o n re q u es t i n g that this Court affirm the trial c ourt pursuant to Rule 2 0 , R u les of the Court of Criminal Appe als. Upon re view of the rec ord and the acc ompany ing ple ading s, this C ourt conc ludes that the trial court pr operly dismiss ed the petition for writ of error coram nobis. Acc ording ly , the S tate’s moti on is gr anted a nd the trial court’s dismiss al is affirme d.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of the Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
J.C. M C LIN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYE S AND J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J . joined. ShinnyL ever ette, pro se

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Blind Akra wi, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appellee , the State of Te nnessee
.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION The Petitioner, Shinny

L ever ette, wa s convicted by a Shelby Co u n t yjury

of first deg ree murder and conspirac y

to commit first deg ree murder. Se e Sta te v . Shin ny L. Le v e re tt, No. 02C01- 95 09 -C R- 00 25 4, 19 96 WL 36 77 50 , *1 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. , at Jac ks on , Jul. 3, 19 96 ). F or the se offe nses, the trial court se ntence d the Petitioner to life imprisonment for the murde r convic tion and2

to fifteen y ear s for the c onspiracy conviction. Id. The P etitioner’s convictions and sente nced w ere aff irmed on direc t appea l. Id.
On Octobe r 13, 2005, the Petitioner filed a petiti on for writ of error coram nobis relief in the trial court. As g rounds for the i s s u an ce of the writ, the Petiti oner a lleg ed that “ne w evidenc e . . . unavailable during his trial, would show that he wa s actua lly innocent of F irst De gre e Murde r.” Spe c if ic a lly , the Pe tit ion e r a lle g e d that c o- de fe nd a nt, An dr e a De nis e Mil e s, the wi fe of the vic tim , had re cante d her te stimony

. He further stated that the re cante d testimonywas in the possession of the Memphis Mental He alth I nstitut e and w as g iven during a court-order ed psy cholog ical eva luation of Andre a De nise Miles.
B y or de r e nte re d Jan ua

ry 6, 20 06 , th e lower c ou rt dismis se d th e pe tit ionfo r c or a m no bis relief . The lowe r court noted that, while the Petitioner’s dire ct appe al was pe nding, a p etition for writ of error coram nobis was filed by reta ined counse l alleg ing the discovery of new ly discovere d evidenc e. Specif

ically , the Petitioner alleg ed that Andre a Miles ha d testified during her tria l, giving statements implicating he rself in her husband’s hom icide and a lleg edly exonerating the Petitioner. This first petition “wa s never ruled upon by [t he trial court].” The lower court acknowle dg ed that thi s Co urt, o n d ir e c t a

pp e a l, r e je c te d the Pe tit ion e r’ s c la im that it wa s e rr or a t hi s tria l to re fu se to permit the introduction of Andrea Miles’ statement g iven during her c ompetency evaluation at Memphis Mental Hea lth I n stitut e. The lower c ourt furthe r re cog nized that, while the Petitioner char acte rizes Andrew Miles’ aff idavit as “re ca nted” testimony , Ms. Miles did not t estify at the Petitioner’s trial. I n denying cora m nobis relied, the lower c ourt made the following finding s, which we su mma

ri ze a s f oll ow s: 1. Andre a Miles’ stateme nt provided to Dr. P hifer during a psy cholog ical eva luation fails to support a writ of er ror c oram nobis as the “ matter a sserted must be one that was not litigated in a motion for new trial or upon appea l.” The Petitioner r aised a s e rr or thetr ia l c ou rt ’s re fu sa l to pe rm it the te sti mon y of Dr

. Phi fe r a s to An dr e a

Mil e s’ statement in his motion for new trial a nd on direc t appea l. 2. The second petit ion for cor am nobis relief was filed te n y ear s after

the judg ment wa s r e nd e re d. Th e pe tit ion , th e r e f o re , f a lls ou tsi de the on e -y e ar s ta tut e of lim itatio ns
. The re ason for

the aba ndonment of the fir st petition i s absent fr om the rec ord. Simi larly , the re cord is silent as to whether the first petition was ever broug ht to the attention of the trial c ourt. The ten- y ear lapse be tween the filing of the fir st petition a ndthese c on d p e tition“ un de rmin e s th e Pe tit ion e r’ s p os iti on that he is f ault le ss i n failing to bring forth the e vidence in a timely manner .” Additionally , the ten-y ear time lapse demonstrates that the evide nce is not new ly discovere d.
3. Even a ssuming that “testify ing at trial afte r having previously exercising the rig ht ag ainst self-inc rimination qua lifies as rec anted testimony ,” “the trial court must be we ll s a tis fi e d th a t th e ne w t e sti mon y is true.” T he tr ia l c ou rt

c on sid e re d “ Mu le s’ statement self- serving and mer e posturing to effe ct a de fense ag ainst the cha rg e of3

murder.” “Given the circ umstances, the te stimonyof Miles is not credible.”
Th e Pe tit ion e r t ime ly

fi le d a no tic e of app e a l do c ume nt.
The State ha s filed a motion re questing aff irmance by this Court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. I n support o f i ts moti on, the State asserts that the petition for coram nobis relief is unt imely , the P etitioner has failed to establish that due process concerns r equire the tolling of the one-y ear statute of limitations, t he matter has pre viouslybeen litig ated in the motion for new tria l and on direc t appea l, and the alleg ed “re cante d” testimony is not credible. The Petitioner has fa iled to respond to the State’s motion. Relief by petition for writ of e rror

coram nobis is provided for in Tenne ssee Code Annotated se c tio n 4 0- 26 -1 05 . T hat st a tut e pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art : The re lief obtainable by

this procee ding sha ll be confine d to err ors dehors the re cord and to matters that we re not or c ould not have been l itigate d on the trial of the c ase, on a motion for a ne w trial, on appe al in the nature of a w rit of er ror, on writ of err or, or in a h abeas corpus pr ocee ding. U pon a showing by the def endant that the defe ndant was without fault i n failing to present c erta in evidenceat the prope r time, a writ of err or cor am nobis will li e for subsequently or new ly discovere d evidenc e relating to matter s which were lit igated at the t rial i f t he judge de termines that such e vid e nc e ma y

ha ve re su lte d in a dif

fe re nt jud g me nt, ha d it be e n pr e se nte d a t the tria l. The issue shall be tried by the court without the in t er v en t i o n of a jury , and if the decision be in f

avor of the petitioner, the judgme nt c omplained of shall be set a side and the de fendant shall be g rante d a new trial in that cause

. T.C.A. § 40-26-105. The writ of er ror c oram nobis is an “e x traordina ry proce dural re medy , ‘filling only a’ slig ht ga

p into which few case s fall.” State v. Mix on, 983 S.W .2d 661, 672 (Tenn.1999) . The “purpose of this remedy

‘is to bring to the attention of the c ou rt s o m e fac t unknown to the court which if known would have resulted in a diff ere nt judgment.’ ” Sta te v . H ar t, 911 S.W .2d 371, 374 (T en n
. C ri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 9 5 ) ( q u o t i n g State ex rel. Carlson v. State, 219 Tenn. 80, 407 S.W.2d 165, 167 (1966)) . The de cision to g rant or deny a petition for writ of err or cor am nobis rests within the sound d is c r e ti o n o f th e tr ial court. Teague v. State, 772 S.W .2d 915, 921 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988) , overruled on othe r grounds by, Mixon, 983 S.W .2d at 671 n. 3. A petition f

o r writ of er

ror c oram nobis must relate: ( 1) the g rounds and the nature of the newly discovere d evidenc e; (2) w hy the admissibilit y

of the newly discovere d evidenc e may have resulted in a dif

fer ent judg ment had the e vidence been a dmitted at the previous trial; (3) t h at the pe tit ion er w a s w ith ou t f

ault in f a ili ng to p re se nt the ne wl y -d isc ov e re d e vid e nc e a t th e app ro pria te time; and (4) the relief soug ht by the petitioner. Ha rt, 911 S.W .2d at 374-75. A pe tition for writ of err or cor am nobis must usually be filed within one y ear afte r t he judgment bec omes final. See T.C.A. § 2 7- 7- 10 3; Mixon, 98 3 S.W.2 d at 67 0. A j ud g me nt b e c ome s f ina l, f or pu rp os e s o f c or a m no bis relief , thirty day s afte r the entry of the judg ment in the trial court if no post-tria l motion i s filed, or upon entry

of an or der disposing of a timely -filed, post-tria l motion. Mixon, 983 S.W .2d at 670. The on e y e ar s ta tut e of

lim itatio ns ma y

be tol le d o nly

wh e n n e c e ssa

ry no t to off

end du e pr oc e ss4

require ments. W

orkman v . State, 41 S.W. 3d10 0, 10 3 ( Te nn .2 00 1)

. Al tho ug h c or a m no bis c la ims also are g overne d by a one-y ear statute of limit ations, the State bear s the burden of ra ising the ba r of the statute of

limit ations as an aff

irmative def

ense. See Harris v. State, 102 S.W .3d 587, 592-93 (T e nn . 2 00 3) ; Sands v. State, 903 S.W .2d 297, 299 (Tenn.1995)

.
The lowe r court dismiss ed the petition beca use t he is sue was litigated at the m otion for new trial and on dire ct appe al, the Petitioner wa s at fault in fa iling to t i m el y p re s en t the petition in a timely manner , and the a lleg ed “r ecanted” testimony is not credible. The rec ord supports the lower court’s f indings. It is clear that the statements of Andrea M i l es we re not “ newly discovere d.” Rather, sa id statements wer e prope rly excluded at the Petitioner’s trial. Moreove r, the Petitioner has failed to off

er e x planation as to the de cade -long delay in bringing the prese nt pe tition. Fina lly , as noted by the orig inal trial court, the statement o f An d rea Miles “wa s self-se rving and supported a self-de fense posture.” See Sta te v . Shin ny L. Le v e re tt, N o
. 0 2 C0 1

- 9 5 0 9

- CR

- 0 0 2 5 4 , 1 9 9 6 WL 367750, *1. Acc ording ly , the lower court wa s corr ect in dis m i s s i n g t h e p et ition for writ of er ror coram nobis.
When an opinion would have no pr ec ed en t ial value, the Court of Criminal Appeals may a ff irm th e jud g me nt or act ionof thetr ia l c ou rt

by me mor a nd um o pin ionwh e n th e jud g me nt i s re nd e re d o r the a c tio n ta

ke n ina pr oc e e din g wi thout a jury a ndsu c h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a determination of g uilt, and the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the finding of the trial judg e. See Tenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 20. W e co n cl u d e t h at this case satisfies the criteria of Rule 20. Ac c or din g ly , it

is o rd e re d th a t th e Stat e’s mot ionis g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt is aff irmed in ac cordance w ith Rul e 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als.

___________________________________



### J.C . MCLIN, JUDGE