### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. LA MA R F LETC HER

Direc t Appeal from the Cr iminal Cou rt f or Shelby Coun ty No. 85-01981 W. Otis Higgs, Jud ge

No. W2007-02697-C CA-R 3-CO - Filed July 22, 2008

The pe titioner, Lamar

Fletcher, a

ppeals from the trial court’s dismiss al of his petition for er ror c oram nobis relief. Thestate has f iled a motion reque sting that thi s court af firm the trial c ourt’s denia l of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als. We grant the state’s motion and

a ff irm th e jud gme nt o f the tria l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cr iminal Cou rt A ffirm ed

J. C. M C L IN , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS and A LA N E. G LE NN , JJ., joined.

Lamar Fletcher, H enning, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr ., Attorne y Ge ne ral and Re po rt e r; De sh e a Du la ny , A ssi stant A tto rn e y G e ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM ORAN DU M OP IN ION

In 1985, th e p e ti ti o n e r

w a s c o n v ic te do f

tw o c o u n ts o f

ar me dr o b b e ry a n do f

b e in g an habitual criminal offende r. On dire ct appe al, this court af firmed the pe titioner’s convictions but

remanded the c ase f

or a ne w proceeding regar ding the petit ioner’s status as an habitual criminal. See State v. Lamar Fletche r , No. 88, 1986 WL 8814 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jac kson, Aug. 13, 1986), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Sept. 29, 1986). Subsequently, the petit ioner was convicted of being an habitual criminal and he re ceive d two con cu rrent life sentenc es for his convictions. See State v. Lamar Fletcher , No. 35, 1988 WL 46988 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 11, 1988)
, perm. app. denied (Tenn. A ug. 29, 1988).
In 1989, the pe titioner sought post-conviction relief, alleging that th e pr os ecu tor wi thh e ld exculpatory evidenc e and that he rec eived the ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. See Lamar Fletcher

v . S tat e , No. O2C01-9409-CR-00188, 1995 WL422783 (Tenn. Crim. Ap p

. , at Jackson, July 19,-2-

1995), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. N ov. 6, 1995). Among t he exculpatory it ems the petitioner a lleged withheld was an insurance claim form filed by one of the victims a few months prior to trial. Id . at *1. The insura nce f

orm included a

notation that the ro b b er y wa s committed by “threeunknown gunmen.” Id . T he pe tit ion e r s ub mitte d th a t th e ins ur a nc e fo rm c ou ld h a ve be e n u se d to di sc re dit thevic tim , w ho te sti fi e d a t tria l that sh e kn e w the pe tit ion e r prior to the ro bb e ry a ndide nti fi e d h im as one of the robbe rs. Id . After

revie w, this court determined that the insuranc e form co uld have been use d for impea chment purpose s. Id . Howeve r, this court found that the insurance form wa s made a vailable by the state prosec utor and de termined the pe ti t i o n er ’s claim meritless. Id . The petitioner also claimed that his trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive. Id . at *2. The pe titioner’s allegations

we re based in pa

rt on the fa ct that his trial counsel a cce pted a position with the state district attorney’ s officea fe w months after repr esen t i n g t h e petitioner a s his public defende r. Id . at *4. After a thorough re view of the rec ord, t his court found no conflict of interest existed and conc luded that the petitioner’s va

rious claims for post-c onviction relief w erewithout merit. Id

.
The p e ti ti o n e r a ls o u n s u c c e s s f u ll y s o u g h t r e li e f in th e f o r m o f w r it o f h ab e a s c o rpus. See Lam ar Fl e tc he r v . S tat e , No. 02C01-9902-CC-00046, 1999 WL 4592 5 3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, July 7, 1999), perm. app. de nied (T e nn . Fe b. 7, 20 00 ). Th e pe tit ion e r c la ime d th a t hi s convictions wer e void be cause his tria l c ounsel ac cepte d a position with the district attorney’s off ice afte r represe nting him at trial. Id

. a t *1 . T he tria l c ou rt fo un d th a t th e pe tit ion e r w a s n ot e nti tle d to habea s corpus re lief and d i s m i s s ed the pe tition. Thi s court af firmed the trial court’s de cision pursuant to Rule 20. Id

.
On Janua ry 8, 2007, the pe titioner filed his petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging that he wa s entitled to r elief beca use he had “new ly disc overe d evidenc e” which proved that his trial counsel ha d committed perjury whe n counsel testified at the post -conviction procee dings that he took a position with the Dis trict Attorney’s Office sever al months after repr esenting the pe titioner. The pe titioner also submitt ed that he ha d “new ly disc overe d evidenc e” w hich showed his innoce nce. Regarding the allegations of per jury, the petitioner introduced trial counsel’s “ OATH O F OFF ICE” for the appointment with the District Attorney’s Of fice , dated Nove mber 1, 1985. How ever , the petitioner did not explain how this alleged “ newly discove red” evidenc e demonstrated the existenc e of an a ctual conflict of i ntere st. The trial c ourt summarily dismis sed the pe tition and the petitioner appealed.

On appeal, the petitioner claims that the trial court err ed by dismiss ing his petiti o n

. The petitioner asserts that his ne wly discovere d evidenc e demonstrates that trial counse l had an a ctual conflict of inter est; and there fore , due proc ess should aff ord him a rea sonable opportunity to be hea rd

on his c la ims of

inn oc e nc e . A c c or din g to thepe tit ion e r, thepr oo f o f h is a c tual in no c e nc e c on sis ts of an insurance c laim form filed by one of t he victim s which indi cate s that three unknow n gunmenT h e p eti t i o n er su b m i t s t h at o n e o f t h e v i cti m s, w h o p o si t i v ely i d en t i fied t h e p eti t i o n er a s o n e o f t h e ro b b ers, 1

te stifie d a t t ria l t h a t sh e k n e w th e p e tit io n e r p rio r to th e ro b b e ry . T h e p e tit io n e r a sse rts th a t t h is in su ra n c e f o rm c o u ld h a v e b e e n u se d to d isc re d it th e v ic tim ’s tes tim o n y re g a rd in g h e r id e n tifica tio n o f th e p e tit io n e r.

The pet i t i oner s ubm i t s t hat one of vi ct i m s t es t i fi ed at t r i al t hat i t w as dar k but he s aw t he pet i t i oner w i t h t he 2

a id o f a stre e t lig h t. T h e p e tit io n e r ass e rts t h a t h e is in p o sse ssio n o f a m a p w h ic h sh o w s n o stre e t l ig h t i n th e p ro x im a te

a re a su g g e ste d b y th e v ic tim ’s tes tim o n y . T h e m a p o r th e trial tra n sc rip t w a s n o t i n c lu d e d in th e re c o rd

.

I t i s unc l ea r t he e xac t cont ent and cont ext of t hi s al l ege d s t at em ent

. T he pe t i t i oner does not i ncl ude a c opy 3

o f t h i s a l l e g e d v i c t i m s t a t e me n t

. Ho we v e r , t h e p e t i t i o n e r c l a i ms t h a t h e i s n o t s h o r t , b e i n g 5 f e e t s e v e n i n c h e s t a l l

. He al s o a s s er t s t hat a t t he t i m e of hi s ar r es t af

t er t he r obber y he had a ful l bea r d and l ong hai r , “c l ea r l y s how i ng he di d not fi t t he des cr i pt i on of t he i nd i cat ed r ob ber. ”

-3- committed the robbe ry, a map whic h reve als the abse nce of a stree t light, and a statement by one 1 2 of the victims identifying one of the r obbery suspect s as a “little short dude with moustacheand short hair.” The pe titioner argue s that this proof would have impeache d the victims’ identification

3 of him at trial and ther efor e prove s his innocence

.
The state ha s filed a motion reque sting that thi s court af firm t he lower court’ s denial of r elief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appe als. As a ba sis for its moti on, thestate a sse rt s th a t th e pe tit ionis t ime -b arr e d andfails to r a isea c og niz ablec la im f

or c or a m no bis relief . The state note s that t h e p et i t i o n er filed his petition almost t wenty yea rs af ter the statute of limit ations had run.

The writ of er

ror c oram nobis is an extra ordinary r emedy by whic h the trial court may provide relief from a judgment under narr ow and limited circ umstances. State v. Mix on , 983 S.W.2d 661, 666 (Tenn. 1999) . The re medy is available by statute in Tennesse e. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40 -2 6- 10 5. Th e statut e pr ov ide s, in p art :
Up on a sh ow ing by the de fe nd a nt that the de fe nd a nt w a s w ith ou t f ault in f a ili ng to prese nt certain evidenc e at the pr oper time, a writ of er

ror c ora m n o bis will l ie for subsequently or newly dis cover ed evide nce r elating to matters which w erelitigated at the trial if the judge determines that such evidenc e may have resulted in a differe nt judgment, ha d it be en prese nted at the trial. The issue shall be tried by th e c ourt without the intervention of a jury, and if the decision be in f avor of the pe titioner, the judgment complained of sha ll be set aside and the def endant sha ll be grante d a new trial in that cause

.
Id . To establish entitlement to a new trial, the petit ioner must show: (a) the grounds and the nature of the ne wly discovere d evidenc e, (b) why t he admissi bility of t he newly discovere d evidenc e may have r esulted in a differe nt judgment if the evidence had been admitted at the pre vious trial, (c) that thede fe nd a nt w a s with ou t fault in faili ng to pr e se nt the ne wl y disc ov e re d ev ide nc e a t th e app ro priate time, and (d) the relief

sought. Sta te v . H

art , 911 S.W.2d 371, 374-75 (T enn. Crim. App. 1995).

“ As a ge ne ral rule , s ub se qu e ntl y o r n e wl y d isc ov e re d ev ide nc e wh ic h .

. . se rv e s n o o the r p ur po se than to contra dict or i mpeac h the evidence adduced during the course of the t rial will not justi fy the granting of a

petition for the writ of err or cor am nobis w hen the evidenc e, if introduced, w ould not-4-

have resulted in a differ ent judgment.” Id

. at 375 (citations om itted). The decision to grant or de ny a petition for writ of err or cor am nobis rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id . A petition for writ of e rror

coram nobis relief must be filed w ithin one year of the time judgment b ec o m es final in the trial court. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 27- 7-103. The oneyear statute of limit ations may be tolled only when ne cessa ry notto offend dueproce ss require ments. See Wo rk ma n v . S tat e , 41 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tenn. 2001)

. Upon re view of the available rec ord, i t is clea r t hat t he petiti oner’ s petition was filed many year s after

th e statute of limitations had expired and the petitioner ha s not alleged any fac t which

wo uldwh ic h r a isea

du e pr oc e ss c on c e rn

. W e no te that the pe tit ion e r’ s claim of c on fl ic t of i nte re st by trial counsel is not “ne wly discovere d evi d en ce ” as the claim wa s examined e xtensively at the post-conviction proc eedings and determined to be entire ly without merit. See Fletche r , 1995 WL 422783. In addition, the petitioner’s claim of conflict of interest does not qualify as evide nce, w hich would establish the petitioner’s a ctual innoce nce. Se e Ed ward Jero me H

ar bis on v . S tat e , No. E2004-00885-CC A- R 2 8 -PD, 2005 WL 1521910, *5 ( Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, June 27, 2005), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. D ec. 19, 2005) (noting that “er ror c oram no b i s re l i ef

is not an appropriate re medy for the petitioner’s c laim that the attorney w ho handled his motion for ne w trial and dire ct appe al had a

conflict of inter est.”). Furthe rmore, the petitioner’s va rious allegations rega rding impeac hment of eye witness identification, eve n if true, reflec t neither “ newly discove red

e vid e nc e ,” no r e vid e nc e of “ a c tual in no c e nc e ” fo r p ur po se s of ou r e rr or c or a m no bis pr oc e e din gs

. Se e Ha rt , 911 S.W.2d at 375. We there fore grant the state ’s motion and aff irm the judgment of

the trial court pur suant to Tennesse e Court of Criminal Appea ls Rule 20.

When an opinion would have no prec edential value, this c ourt may aff irm the judgment or action of the trial court by memorandum opinion whe n the judgment is rende red or the a ction taken in a proc eeding without a jury and such judgment or action is not a determination of guilt, and the evidenc e does not pr eponder ate against the finding of the trial judge. See Te nn . Ct. Crim . App . R. 20. We c onclude that this c ase satisfies the criteria of Rule 20. Ac cordingly, it is ordere d that the state’s m o t i on is granted. Thejudgment of the trial court is affirmed in a ccor dancewith Rule 20, Rul e s o f the Cou rt

of Crimi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ J.C. McLIN, JUDG E