IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

STEVE ALLEN BRADEN V. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court of Davidson County

No. 2002-C-1395 J. Randall Wyatt, Jr., Judge

No. M2011-01076-CCA-R3-CO - Filed November 9, 2011

The petitioner filed pro se a writ of error coram nobis regarding two convictions for

aggravated assault. The trial court summarily denied relief and this appeal followed. We

affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal

Appeals.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals

JEFFREY S. BIVINS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JERRY L. SMITH and

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JJ., joined.

Steve Allen Braden, pro se, appellant.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General & Reporter; Mark A. Fulks, Senior Counsel; for the

appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Steve Allen Braden (“the Petitioner”) pled guilty on October 3, 2002, to two counts

of aggravated assault and was sentenced pursuant to his plea agreement to concurrent terms

of four years of probation after serving thirty-five days. On April 8, 2011, the Petitioner filed

pro se a writ of error coram nobis, alleging that his pleas were not voluntary or knowing; that

he received the ineffective assistance of counsel; and that his due process rights had been

violated. He made these allegations all because he allegedly had not been informed that his

convictions could be used to enhance later federal sentences. The trial court summarily

denied relief on the basis that the pleading did not allege any newly discovered evidence and

therefore did not state a cognizable claim for the writ. The trial court then elected to consider

the pleading as a petition for post-conviction relief and found that it was time-barred. The
Petitioner appealed, and the State moved this Court to affirm the trial court’s judgment

pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s motion is well taken,

1

and accordingly, we affirm the criminal court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20.

The relief obtainable pursuant to a writ of error coram nobis “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.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105(b) (2006). The

issue of whether the writ is available to a defendant who pleads guilty is currently before the

Tennessee Supreme Court. See Terrence G. Motley v. State, No. W2010-02264-CCA-R3-

CO, 2011 WL 5009863, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 20, 2011) (citing Stephen Wlodarz v.

State, No. E2008-02179-R11-CO, 2010 WL 1998766 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 19, 2010),

perm. appeal granted (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010).

2

Assuming, arguendo, that such relief is available, a petition for a writ of error coram

nobis still must be filed within one year of the underlying judgment becoming final. See

Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-26-105(a); 27-7-103 (2000). The Petitioner filed his pleading more

than eight years after the relevant judgments became final. Moreover, he offered the trial

court no reasons to toll the statute of limitations. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment summarily denying the Petitioner’s claim for coram nobis relief.

As recognized by the trial court, the Petitioner’s allegations are more in the nature of

claims cognizable in a petition for post-conviction relief. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-103

(2006). Accordingly, the trial court chose to analyze the Petitioner’s allegations under the

Post-Conviction Procedure Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-30-101 to -313 (2006 and Supp.

2011); Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 319 (Tenn. 1995) (“It is well settled that a trial

 Rule 20 provides as follows: 1

The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, when an opinion

would have no precedential value, may affirm the judgment or action of the trial court by

memorandum opinion rather than by formal opinion, when:

(1)(a) The judgment is rendered or the action is taken in a proceeding before the

trial judge without a jury, and such judgment or action is not a determination of guilt, and

the evidence does not preponderate against the finding of the trial judge, . . . and

(2) No error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment or action is apparent on the

record.

Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20.

This Court has previously indicated that coram nobis relief may be available to a defendant who 2

pleads guilty where he provides newly discovered evidence that demonstrates he did not enter his plea

knowingly and voluntarily. See Newsome v. State, 995 S.W.2d 129, 134 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).

-2-
court is not bound by the title of the pleading but has the discretion to treat the pleading

according to the relief sought.”). Claims for post-conviction relief, however, also must be

filed within one year of the underlying judgments becoming final. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-

102(a) (2006). When a petition for post-conviction relief is untimely, the failure to set forth

reasons for tolling the statute of limitations is fatal to the proceeding. See State v. Nix, 40

S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tenn. 2001). The pleading filed by the Petitioner offered no grounds for

tolling the one-year statute of limitations. Therefore, the trial court committed no error in

3

summarily dismissing the petition on this ground.

In conclusion, the Petitioner’s pleading is untimely whether construed as a petition for

a writ of error coram nobis or as a petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm

the trial court’s summary denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of Court of Criminal

Appeals.

_________________________________

JEFFREY S. BIVINS, JUDGE

 Based upon our review of the record, we also are unable to determine independently that any of 3

the statutory grounds are met for tolling the statute of limitations. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102(b)

(2006).

-3-