IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs March 21, 2018

JOAN ELIZABETH HALL v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lincoln County

No. S9600017 Forest A. Durard, Jr., Judge

___________________________________

No. M2017-01621-CCA-R3-ECN

___________________________________

Petitioner, Joan Elizabeth Hall, appeals the denial of her petition for a writ of error coram 

nobis based upon newly discovered evidence. After thoroughly reviewing the record and 

applicable authorities, we affirm the error coram nobis court’s judgment. 

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

THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which NORMA MCGEE 

OGLE and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

Jonathan C. Brown, Fayetteville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Joan Elizabeth Hall.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Zachary T. Hinkle, Assistant 

Attorney General; Robert James Carter, District Attorney General; and Edward Barnard, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

Background

Petitioner was convicted of criminal responsibility for first degree murder and was 

sentenced to life imprisonment. Her conviction was affirmed by this court on direct 

appeal. The facts of this case as set forth by this court on direct appeal are as follows:

Stan Golden testified that he was traveling, on August 1, 1995, across 

Eldad Bridge at approximately 4:08 p.m. when he was flagged down by 

the Defendant. The Defendant told him that “they had shot her 

husband,” and her husband was now laying in the river dead.

12/12/2018
- 2 -

Danetta Marshall lived in the vicinity of the Eldad Bridge and was 

alerted by her next door neighbor, on August 1, 1995, that someone had 

been shot. When Marshall came outside, the Defendant was crawling up 

her driveway and eventually sat next to Marshall’s car. Defendant 

screamed, “[T]hey shot my husband. They’re going to kill me.”

Marshall’s next door neighbor, Michael Key, then went inside 

Marshall’s home to call 911.

Michael Key lived next door to Danetta Marshall. Key left work on 

August 1, 1995, at 3:30 p.m. and arrived home fifteen (15) to twenty 

(20) minutes later. While feeding his dogs, Key heard someone 

screaming for help, and he estimated the time he first heard the screams 

to be between 4:00 and 4:30 p.m.

Adrian Key, Michael’s Key’s son, was alerted by his brother of the 

situation. Adrian Key walked outside and found the Defendant 

screaming, “Don’t let them get me. They shot my husband.” Aron Key, 

Michael Key’s older son, also observed the Defendant screaming 

between 4:00 and 4:30 p.m. that “they” killed her husband and were 

going to kill her.

Chad Robinson, the eighteen (18) year old stepson of Michael Key, 

drove to his home on the afternoon of August 1, 1995. When he got out 

of his car and started walking toward the house, he heard a gunshot. He 

went inside for five (5) or ten (10) minutes, then left again to go to an 

auto parts store nearby. Robinson spent ten (10) minutes driving to the 

store and approximately six (6) minutes inside the store, then returned 

home to find his brother and father sitting with the Defendant on the side 

of the road. Robinson estimated that the time between hearing the 

gunshot until he saw the Defendant to have been about twenty (20) or 

twenty-five (25) minutes. Robinson also recalled that Defendant used 

the word “they” when describing who had shot her husband.

Johnny Simmons, a deputy with the Lincoln County Sheriff’s 

Department, received a call at 4:18 p.m. on August 1, 1995. Simmons 

went to the scene at Eldad Bridge, arriving at 5:10 p.m. as one of the first 

officers on the scene. Simmons observed the victim’s body lying next to 

the river bank.

Andy Cline, the head of Crime Stoppers in Lincoln County, traveled to 

Eldad Road to videotape the crime scene on August 1, 1995. His video 

of the crime scene was shown to the jury.
- 3 -

Mac Kidd, paramedic with the Lincoln County Regional EMS, 

responded to a call at the Eldad River Bridge on August 1, 1995. The 

body of the victim had already been pulled from the river when he 

arrived on the scene. Kidd noted that the victim had a gunshot wound to 

the back of his head without an exit wound, blood coming from his left 

ear, and a possible entrance wound to the upper left quadrant of his body 

with a possible exit point in the lower right side of his abdomen. The 

body was transported to Lincoln Regional Hospital.

Mamie Ruth Hall, mother of the victim, testified that her son had two 

adopted daughters, one biological daughter and twin sons. He had been 

married to the Defendant for seven years on July 31, 1995. While the 

victim had been employed at Amana Refrigeration, he was laid off in 

July 1995. The Defendant’s two daughters lived with the victim and the 

Defendant, and following the death of the Defendant’s mother, the 

Defendant’s biological son, Richard Romine, also came to live with 

them. A year prior to the victim’s death, Richard Romine left to live 

with Michael Romine in Ohio. Mamie Hall explained that Michael 

Romine was the Defendant’s older brother, and Richard was the 

Defendant’s biological son who had been adopted by the Defendant’s 

parents.

Mamie Hall stated that her relationship with the victim and the 

Defendant was good and they saw each other often. She described an 

incident during which the Defendant had threatened to kill her son, 

although she perceived that to be said “in jest.” Hall often went fishing 

with the Defendant and the victim, and she had fished at the same spot 

where the shooting occurred just four (4) days prior to the shooting 

incident.

Following the victim’s death and funeral, the Defendant told Hall that 

she did not know what happened. However, on the evening of the 

shooting, Hall overheard the Defendant tell her daughter that Richard 

Romine had shot the victim. Because she was suspicious, Hall hired 

Larry Shavers to independently investigate the murder. Their first 

meeting was on October 21, 1995.

Joyce McConnell, Investigator for the Lincoln County Sheriff’s 

Department, answered a 911 call at 4:15 p.m. on August 1, 1995 by 

traveling to the Eldad River Bridge on Eldad Road. After she arrived, 

McConnell was directed to Danetta Marshall’s home where she found 

the Defendant sitting on the front porch. McConnell described the 

Defendant as hysterical, crying and scared. Defendant stated that “they”
- 4 -

were going to get her, indicating that while she did not witness her 

husband’s shooting, she believed more than one (1) person was involved 

as she overheard someone say, “[T]here she goes,” when she attempted 

to flee the area. Defendant had left the spot where she and the victim 

were fishing to use the bathroom, and while she was finishing she heard 

her husband yell, “Run Joanie.” While Defendant did not mention 

Richard Romine’s presence at the time, she later told McConnell he had 

been with them while they were fishing, but she did not know where he 

was at the time of the shooting.

Defendant was advised to come by the Sheriff’s Department. When she 

did, her Miranda rights were administered to her and a statement was 

taken. This statement was recorded and the tape was played to the jury. 

McConnell described that during the interview Defendant did not know 

who shot her husband. After leaving the area where they were fishing to 

go to the bathroom, she heard her husband yell, “Run Joanie,” and then 

she heard shots. Defendant indicated that Richard Romine had been 

with them earlier, but they dropped him off at the intersection of Eldad 

Road and Liberty Road. In Defendant’s handwritten supplement to her 

statement to police given on August 1, 1995, the Defendant included the 

following: “[A]nother time, Richard told my daughter that he would kill 

Olen by shooting him. I asked him how he would get away with it. He 

told me that he would blame it on me saying that I had him do it.” Other 

investigation in which McConnell was involved included a search of the 

Defendant and the victim’s home for weapons, but none of those found 

were determined to be the weapon used for the shooting. The Defendant 

was tested for gunshot residue, but the result was not positive.

McConnell stated that Richard Romine was charged with the murder of 

the victim on the evening of August 1, 1995. The investigation 

continued until February or March 1996. The Defendant and David 

Michael Romine were subsequently charged.

Kevin Duff, life insurance claims examiner for Principal Financial 

Group, testified that the Defendant was paid $84,692.38 in death benefits 

for a life insurance policy the victim had in effect at the time of his 

death.

Mike Hunter, investigator with the Lewisburg Police, also interviewed 

the Defendant who stated that she, Richard Romine and the victim had 

gone fishing. After she left the fishing scene to go to the bathroom, she 

heard her husband yell, “Run Joanie,” and then heard one (1) or two (2) 

shots. After running back to find her husband, she saw him lying 
- 5 -

facedown in the water. The Defendant described that the victim and 

Richard Romine had problems, with Richard threatening to kill the 

victim if given the chance. Richard had left their home to live with his 

brother Michael Romine in Ohio, but he returned to Tennessee in March 

1995. Michael Romine eventually moved to the area, then Richard and 

Michael moved in together about one-half mile from the victim and the 

Defendant’s home.

Richard Romine testified that although he was seventeen (17) years old 

at the time of trial, he was sixteen (16) on August 1, 1995. He learned at 

the age of twelve (12) that Defendant was his biological mother, though 

he had always known her as his adopted sister while he resided with his 

adopted mother and grandmother in North Carolina. After his adopted 

mother died, Richard went to live with the Defendant and the victim. 

Defendant’s two daughters, Jenia and Mary Jane Latiolais, were also 

living there.

Initially, Richard admitted his first problems with the victim were when 

he found a mark on Jania’s [sic] left leg after the victim had hit her with 

a belt. Also, there was a dispute over the television during which law 

enforcement officers came to the home and advised Richard to spend the 

night away from the Hall residence. Shortly after this incident Richard 

moved to Ohio to live with Michael Romine. After Richard and Michael 

moved back to Lincoln County, the Defendant found a mobile home for 

them to live in. Richard and the victim fished on a weekly basis, 

although never at the scene of the shooting.

Richard admitted that about two (2) or three (3) weeks prior to the 

murder, the Defendant discussed the problems she was having with the 

victim. She told Richard she wanted him to kill the victim because that 

was the only way to get rid of all the problems. Richard did not take her 

seriously until she produced a Derringer two-shot handgun. Defendant 

showed Richard how to operate the gun and then placed it back inside 

her purse. Four (4) or five (5) days later, the Defendant told him that if 

he were going to kill the victim, then it would have to be done prior to 

August 1, 1995, because the victim’s insurance was running out on that 

date. A third conversation regarding killing the victim occurred a few 

days later, and it was then that Richard told the Defendant he would 

commit the murder.

Two (2) or three (3) days prior to August 1, 1995, Richard again talked 

with the Defendant while Michael Romine was present. The Defendant 

then offered to give him the victim’s truck, $10,000.00, and to pay his 
- 6 -

health insurance in return for his killing her husband. The plan was for 

Richard to shoot the Defendant in the leg while they were fishing so that 

it would appear to be a robbery. The Defendant then advised Richard 

that because the victim’s employer had paid to renew his insurance 

policies and the policies would not lapse, there was no hurry to commit 

the murder prior to August 1, 1995. The day prior to the shooting, the 

plans changed slightly such that Richard was not supposed to be present 

at the time of the shooting, nor was he supposed to shoot the Defendant 

in the leg to make it look like a robbery. Michael Romine showed 

Richard how to load the handgun using real bullets, then the Defendant 

gave him four (4) hollow point bullets. Two (2) bullets were placed in 

the gun, with the remaining two left in Richard’s pocket.

After their meeting, Richard began writing a contract for the Defendant 

to sign. He messed up the first version and threw it away in a shoe box. 

The second contract provided that Richard was “supposed to off Olen 

[victim]” with the Defendant to supply the gun, gloves, and alibi. Also, 

the Defendant was to give Richard $10,000.00, the victim’s truck and 

pay his health insurance for two (2) years. He met the Defendant later 

that same day, but she refused to sign the contract. Richard stated that 

Defendant did agree with its contents. He also put this contract into the 

shoe box. A plan was made for Michael to pick him up after the 

shooting.

On August 1, 1995, after 2:30 p.m., the Defendant picked up Richard 

and he got the gun, gloves, and fishing gear. Richard put the gun in his 

pocket. When they went to the Defendant’s residence, the victim was 

“being quiet.” Richard told Defendant that the victim knew about their 

plan, but Defendant denied this. Richard claimed that the plan was for 

him to shoot the victim on the path leading to the river, but he could not 

get his gloves on so he went to the opposite side of the bridge from the 

victim. Defendant stated she had to go to the bathroom, and then 

Richard approached the victim from behind and shot him. After the 

victim fell into the water, Defendant came up behind him and was 

pointing at the victim so he shot him in the head. The gun was thrown 

into the river, and he fled the scene to be picked up by Michael.

Richard and Michael drove to Bi-Lo Supermarket to pay their telephone 

bill, and Richard told Michael that, “[H]e was shot. He was dead.”

After paying the phone bill, they drove to the Defendant’s residence 

where Richard placed his gloves and his shoes in a barrel used for 

burning trash. Richard washed off and changed clothes, leaving his 

clothes in the laundry. They traveled towards Pulaski, then returned to 
- 7 -

the Defendant’s home to get her daughters. When they arrived, they 

“found out” about the victim’s shooting so they went to the hospital. 

After leaving the hospital and going to Ruth Hall’s home, law 

enforcement officers arrived and took Richard into custody.

On cross-examination, Richard admitted some inconsistencies in his 

testimony and confessions, including that he initially claimed his 

confession was not a true story. He recalled telling workers at the 

Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute that he was “messed up in the 

head” and that you “have to be a little crazy to do what I did-commit 

murder.” He also told investigators that Defendant had pulled the 

trigger, but admitted at trial that was a lie. Richard identified a letter 

which he wrote to the Defendant dated April 26, 1996, in which he 

indicated he “did wrong” and should have taken responsibility for his 

acts and never should have tried to “put it off on her.”

Donna Pence, special agent with the TBI, was called in to investigate 

with McConnell in October 1995. She received some torn pieces of 

paper and a mug from Larry Shavers. Pence first interviewed Michael 

Romine on January 19, 1996, and she also participated in the interview 

of Natalie Romine on February 1, 1996. Notes were made from both 

these interviews, and the Defendant received copies of the notes from 

Michael Romine’s interview.

Michael Romine testified that he is the biological uncle and adopted 

brother of Richard Romine. During the summer of 1994, Defendant 

contacted Michael to ask if Richard could come to live with him because 

Richard and the victim were having problems. Michael agreed, but in 

February 1995 he sent Richard back to Tennessee. Two (2) weeks later, 

Michael moved to Tennessee and he and Richard eventually moved into 

a trailer. The relationship between Defendant and her husband was tense 

to the point that during the summer of 1995, the Defendant told him that 

the victim needed to go. She described a plan she had devised for him to 

be shot while they were on a fishing trip.

Two (2) days later, the Defendant showed a .38 caliber weapon to 

Michael and offered him $10,000.00 and a truck. The shooting was 

supposed to occur that same day. Michael came to the river where the 

Defendant and the victim were fishing, but he was unable to pull the gun 

out. Afterwards, the Defendant said she was only “playing around” with 

Michael and knew he would not shoot her husband, but then stated that 

she was in the process of poisoning her husband by putting poison in the 

honey he used in his coffee. Michael recalled seeing the Defendant mix 
- 8 -

something in the honey she added to Defendant’s coffee. A week prior 

to August 1, 1995, the Defendant mentioned a double indemnity aspect 

of the insurance and asked Richard to shoot the victim. Three (3) or four 

(4) days later, the Defendant, Michael and Richard were again discussing 

shooting the victim. The Defendant told Richard that if he were caught 

he would only serve six (6) months incarceration in a juvenile facility 

and that she would provide his lawyer and an alibi. The plan was devised 

for Richard to shoot the victim, with Michael then picking up Richard, 

and the Defendant claiming that three (3) men tried to rob them.

On the evening prior to August 1, 1995, the Defendant stated that the 

shooting was to occur the next day. On the morning of August 1, 1995, 

the Defendant gave Michael $300.00 to pay his phone bill in order to 

provide an alibi for Richard. The Defendant picked up Richard at 2:45 

p.m., then Michael went to her home at 3:00 p.m. to start a load of 

laundry. Michael then drove to Eldad Bridge, and when he arrived he 

saw Richard running towards the highway. Richard got into the back of 

Michael’s vehicle, and they drove to Bi-Lo Supermarket to pay 

Michael’s phone bill. The bill reflected it was paid at 3:43 p.m. on 

August 1, 1995. Then they drove back to the Defendant’s residence 

where Richard took a shower while Michael started a fire in the trash

barrel to burn Richard’s shoes. Michael put Richard’s clothes in the 

washing machine. Michael later found two (2) bullets in the washing 

machine which he threw in a woodshed, but he later retrieved the bullets 

and turned them over to personnel in the public defender’s office.

In his initial statements to law enforcement officers, Michael admitted 

that he did not tell the “whole truth” in an effort to assist his brother 

Richard. He identified a contract found by Natalie Romine in Richard’s 

room after the victim’s funeral. It was placed behind a picture in 

Richard’s room. He saw it again while he was in North Carolina when 

Natalie gave it to him torn into pieces. Following the indictment against 

him for criminal responsibility and accessory after the fact, he pled 

guilty to being an accessory with an agreement to serve a two (2) year 

sentence.

Louis Kuykendall, special agent forensic toxicologist with the TBI, 

testified that he tested the victim’s coffee cup for Diazinon or Dursban, 

commonly known as insecticides. He found a brown residue on the cup. 

While the tests showed no basic or acidic drugs, it did test positively for 

cyanide in the residue.
- 9 -

Natalie Romine is married to James Frederick Romine, the Defendant’s 

brother, and she had only met the Defendant on two (2) or three (3) 

occasions prior to the victim’s death. After learning of the victim’s 

death, she called the Defendant and was told that Richard had killed him. 

The Defendant asked Natalie to come for the funeral because she had no 

other family. Natalie agreed and flew to Huntsville, Alabama where she 

was picked up by the Defendant and her daughters. After arriving, the 

Defendant appeared to be “fine,” but told Natalie that if it would have 

happened any later, she would not have received any insurance money. 

The Defendant advised Natalie that she would receive $250,000.00 from 

the victim’s death. Defendant described the victim as the “meanest son 

of a bitch that ever lived.” Defendant claimed that she was trying to 

protect Richard. After returning to the Defendant’s home, the Defendant 

called the insurance company.

At the visitation prior to the victim’s funeral, the Defendant gave various 

accounts of how her husband’s shooting occurred, including that Richard 

had been smoking marijuana prior to killing the victim. Following the 

funeral, Defendant joked all the way to the cemetery, but adjusted her 

rearview mirror to prevent people in the car following them from seeing 

her amusement. After they returned to the funeral home, Defendant gave 

Natalie and Michael money so that they could get food and beer.

That same evening, Natalie found the contract at Michael and Richard’s 

home. She stated that the document read, “I want ... $10,000.00, Olen’s 

truck, two years’ insurance. You supply me with weapon, alibi and 

gloves.” While reading the document, Michael took it from Natalie and 

stuck it into his boot. Michael later returned it to her to read. The 

following day, they went to visit Richard who was being detained at the 

juvenile detention center. Richard tried to tell Natalie what had 

happened, but the Defendant warned him not to do so. That evening 

they all went drinking, and Natalie returned to North Carolina the 

following day.

Michael came to visit Natalie on two (2) or three (3) different occasions 

in North Carolina, and the Defendant moved there to live in a trailer on 

her brother’s land. While Michael was there, Natalie overheard him tell 

the Defendant that she had better get a lawyer for Richard. Later, she 

heard Michael talking about how the Defendant tried to poison her 

husband, and the Defendant then implied to Natalie that “[i]t should have 

worked,” in reference to her attempts to poison the victim. On another 

occasion, the Defendant admitted that she asked Michael to kill her 

husband.
- 10 -

While not present when the contract was torn into pieces, Natalie saw the 

contract on her kitchen table after it was torn into pieces by the 

Defendant. Natalie placed the pieces of the contract into an envelope 

which she placed in her bedroom, then later gave to Michael. Natalie 

recalled other conversations she had with the Defendant during which 

the Defendant advised her that she had Richard kill the victim.

Charles Harlan, forensic pathologist and medical examiner, performed 

the autopsy of the victim. The death was determined to have been 

caused by two (2) gunshot wounds to the head, chest and abdomen, with 

both shots being fatal. The first gunshot wound was a near gunshot 

wound to the back, with the muzzle of the gun being from six (6) to 

twelve (12) inches from the victim’s body. The victim bled for 

somewhere between three (3) to ten (10) minutes from this wound. The 

gunshot to the victim’s head caused him to cease being a viable 

organism immediately upon being shot, even though it would have taken

several minutes for him to have died. Upon testing the victim’s blood 

and urine, no basic drugs were detected. Harlan testified that “the 

cyanide test was not tested for by the laboratory.” However, without 

further explanation, Harlan stated that there was no indication of the 

presence of cyanide during the autopsy because “if cyanide is present, I 

can detect it.”

This evidence concluded the State’s case-in-chief.

Jeff Bradford, investigator with the Lincoln County Sheriff’s 

Department, testified that he participated in the investigation at the scene 

of the shooting and then later questioned the Defendant at the Sheriff’s 

Department. He, along with the Defendant and Investigator Mike 

Hopson, went to the residence of Michael and Richard Romine where 

they searched the home. They found a shoe box in the bedroom 

containing drug paraphernalia, but no contract was found.

Jim Cranford, the brother of Ruth Hall, observed that the Defendant and 

the victim had an excellent marriage. During the funeral, he never 

observed any inappropriate behavior by the Defendant, and thought she 

appeared to truly mourn the death of her husband.

Palmeda Taylor, a licensed psychologist, evaluated Richard Romine and 

concluded that he was not mentally ill and was competent to stand trial. 

Richard admitted to her that, “You have to be a little crazy to do what I 

did, that is, commit murder.” Two (2) weeks later, Richard retracted his 
- 11 -

confession of killing the victim and named the Defendant as the 

murderer. She described his behavior as generally manipulative and 

superficially cooperative, having average intelligence and knowing right 

from wrong. Richard admitted to a poor frustration tolerance and poor 

anger control, stating that he “could not stand too many people. If I 

don’t like them, I want to hit them.” Dr. Taylor found Richard as having 

the potential for reacting with overt anger when he was upset.

State v. Joan Elizabeth Hall, No. 01C01-9710-CC-00503, 1999 WL 34782, at *1-8 

(Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 28, 1999). 

Thereafter, Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief that was 

denied by the post-conviction court, and this court affirmed the denial. Joan Elizabeth 

Hall v. State, Nol. M2000-02707-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 1028819 (Tenn. Crim. App. 

Sept. 7, 2001). On February 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of error 

coram nobis. Counsel was appointed, and the petition was amended to include a motion 

to correct an illegal sentence. Both the petition for writ or error coram nobis and the 

motion to correct an illegal sentence were denied by the error coram nobis court. The 

court specifically found that the petition for writ of error coram nobis was time-barred. 

Error Coram Nobis Hearing

Petitioner’s petition for writ of error coram nobis is based upon two letters 

purportedly written by her son and co-defendant, James Romine, in 2005. The first letter 

was typed and dated April 26, 2005, responding to an inquiry from the Tennessee 

Innocence Project. In the letter, Mr. Romine stated that he decided to kill the victim 

because the victim had been beating Mr. Romine’s sister. Mr. Romine also stated in the 

letter that he killed the victim during a fishing trip when Petitioner went to use the 

restroom. He said that after his arrest, his brother, “David,” later told him to talk to a 

private investigator who told him what to say. He closed the letter with the following 

statement: “All I want to do is fix things my mother should not be in prison for 

something I did and she never knew about it until it was to[o] late.” The second letter 

was a handwritten, notarized letter purportedly written by Mr. Romine also stating that he 

killed the victim during a fishing trip and that Petitioner had “no idea of his actions until 

after th[e]y were accomplished.” Mr. Romine stated that he had planned to also kill 

Petitioner but he did not have any bullets left after killing the victim. He said that he 

talked to a private investigator after his arrest who told him that he would receive less 

time if he said that Petitioner was involved in the murder. Mr. Romine also said that he 

lied about Petitioner’s involvement in the murder to get revenge on her. The handwritten 

letter was signed and notarized on February 6, 2005. 
- 12 -

At the error coram nobis hearing, Petitioner testified that she received the typed 

letter from the Tennessee Innocence Project in February 2011 along with a packet of 

papers. She said:

They sent me a letter saying they were going through files because they 

were coming out of - - they were no longer in business, they could not 

afford it. And they were going through files and come through my file 

and said that represented - - just sent me a packet of papers and that letter 

was in that paper from my son to the Innocence Project.

When asked why she waited until 2016 to file the petition for writ of error coram nobis 

Petitioner replied:

To tell you the truth, anything after I had my stroke, I had trouble 

remembering when I sent things out. But when I got everything together 

I was told that is what I needed to file and send in and that is what I did. 

That is when they told me about the Writ of Error, I didn’t know there 

was another stage to go through. 

The State objected to the typed letter as hearsay, and the error coram nobis court admitted 

it as an exhibit “for the restricted purpose of when she received that letter and when she 

might have been placed on notice when there might have been a problem in 2011, not for 

the truth of the matters contained in the letter because I think it is necessary to establish 

she waited from 2011 to 2016 to file anything in response to this letter.” 

Petitioner testified that at the time she received the typed letter, she and Mr. 

Romine did not have any other communication. She said that they communicated while 

he was still incarcerated “through the chapel” when he was in a special needs facility. 

Petitioner thought that he was sent there in 2009 for counseling. She also said that Mr. 

Romine had sent her a few letters in 2003 and 2004. Petitioner testified that she never 

discussed the letter with Mr. Romine, and she did not believe he knew that she had it. 

She said that she had communicated with Mr. Romine after receiving the letter “once 

before he got out in 2012 through the chapel, and then probably once when he was at my

daughter’s house, and when my brother passed away.” 

Petitioner testified that she placed the typed letter from Mr. Romine in her “legal 

papers.” When asked if she researched any issues relating to the letter, Petitioner said: 

“No, sir, I didn’t. I had filed the other letter that was notarized, and he told me it was an 

alleged letter and I could not use it. So I didn’t figure that one would do any good.” 

Petitioner testified that she was referring to a second notarized, handwritten letter 

purportedly written by Mr. Romine in 2005. The State also objected to the admission of 

the handwritten letter, and the error coram nobis court ruled that it could be used to 

establish a time line of when Petitioner received the letter but not for its content. 
- 13 -

Petitioner was again asked why she waited five years to do anything with the letter from 

the Innocence Project, and she said: 

Well, like I said I didn’t think it was worth anything. And I was going 

through it and somebody was talking about filing a Writ of Error Coram 

Nobis and told that is what I should file. I did not know that existed and 

had no idea what it was. I looked it up and found out it was something 

that had some grounds and I figured the letter did. So that is how I filed 

it. Why it took so long I never even heard of it until 2015. 

Petitioner testified that she took immediate action when she learned about a petition for 

writ of error coram nobis. 

On cross-examination, Petitioner testified that she had a stroke in 2009. She said 

that she received the handwritten letter from Mr. Romine in 2005. Petitioner testified that 

she then attempted to file it with the “Lincoln County Court” as a “clerical error.” 

However, it was denied by the court. She said that she found out about filing a petition 

for writ of error coram nobis in 2014 or the beginning of 2015, and her petition was filed 

on “February 2

nd or 3rd of 2016.” Petitioner testified that she never discussed either the 

handwritten letter or the typed letter with Mr. Romine. She said that the Innocence 

Project got involved in her case because she asked them for help in 2004. She never sent 

them a copy of the handwritten letter. Petitioner testified that she never told any of her 

family members to make contact with the Innocence Project about her case; however, she 

said that the Innocence Project asked her for Mr. Romine’s address and she gave it to 

them. 

Analysis

Petitioner argues that she is entitled to due process tolling of the statute of 

limitations for her petition for writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered 

evidence consisting of two letters written by her son and co-defendant Richard Romine 

stating that he killed the victim and that Petitioner had no knowledge of it. 

A writ of error coram nobis is a very limited remedy which allows a petitioner the 

opportunity to present newly discovered evidence “which may have resulted in a different 

verdict if heard by the jury at trial.” Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tenn.

2001); see also State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999). The remedy is limited “to 

matters that were not and could not be litigated on the trial of the case, on a motion for 

new trial, on appeal in the nature of a writ of error, on writ of error, or in a habeas 

proceeding.” T.C.A. § 40-26-105. Examples of newly discovered evidence include a 

victim’s recanted testimony or physical evidence which casts doubts on the guilt of the 

Petitioner. Workman, 41 S.W.3d at 101; State v. Ratliff, 71 S.W.3d 291 (Tenn. Crim.

App. 2001); State v. Hart, 911 S.W.2d 371 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). The supreme court 
- 14 -

has stated the following concerning the standard to be applied when a trial court reviews 

a petition for writ of error coram nobis:

[T]he trial judge must first consider the newly discovered evidence and 

be “reasonably well satisfied” with its veracity. If the defendant is 

“without fault” in the sense that the exercise of reasonable diligence 

would not have led to a timely discovery of the new information, the trial 

judge must then consider both the evidence at trial and that offered at the 

coram nobis proceeding in order to determine whether the new evidence 

may have led to a different result.

State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 527 (Tenn. 2007). Whether to grant or deny a petition 

for writ of error coram nobis rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. at 

527-28. Summary dismissal, without discovery or an evidentiary hearing, is permissible 

when a petition for writ of error coram nobis is insufficient on its face. Nunley v. State, 

552 S.W.3d 800, 826 (Tenn. 2018). 

A petition for writ of error coram nobis must be dismissed as untimely filed unless 

filed within one (1) year of the date on which the petitioner’s judgment of conviction 

became final in the trial court. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d at 670. The only exception to this is 

when due process requires a tolling of the statute of limitations. Workman, 41 S.W.3d at 

103. 

Petitioner does not dispute that her petition for writ of error coram nobis was not 

timely filed. In this case, Petitioner’s motion for new trial was denied on May 23, 1997, 

and her petition for writ of error coram nobis was not filed until February 8, 2016, well 

outside of the limitations period. In addition to being untimely filed, the trial court also 

found that Petitioner had not alleged any grounds that would toll the statute of 

limitations. The error coram nobis court, citing Harris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 141, 144 

(Tenn. 2010), concluded: 

This petitioner by her own admissions had knowledge of the recanted 

testimony by [Richard] Romine (exhibit 3) as early as 2005, some 11 

years before the filing of her writ. Additionally, she had the information 

found in exhibit 1 some 5 years before the filing of her writ. Petitioner 

was anything but diligent and no testimony she provided formed a 

reasonable basis for excuse. Just as in Harris this petitioner was in 

entire control of the filing of her writ and there was nothing preventing 

her from doing the same. see Harris, 301 S.W.3d at 147. Due process 

considerations in this case do not warrant tolling of the statute of 

limitation[s] nor does it warrant taking additional proof. 
- 15 -

We agree with error coram nobis court. Petitioner waited eleven years after 

receiving the handwritten letter and five years after receiving the typed letter before filing 

her petition for writ of error coram nobis. In Harris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 

2010 ), overruled on other grounds by Nunley v. State, 552 S.W.3d 800 (Tenn. 2018), the 

supreme court declined to toll the statute of limitations because the petitioner waited too 

late between the discovery of the evidence and the filing of his error coram nobis petition. 

The petitioner in Harris had two pieces of evidence, which consisted of alibi evidence 

and third-party confession evidence, that he had discovered six years and twenty-one 

months, respectively, before filing his petition. Since nothing prevented petitioner from 

filing his petition earlier within that time period, the supreme court found the delay to be 

unreasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to due 

process tolling, and his petition was time-barred. Id. at 145-47; see also Melissa Barnett

v. State, No. E2012-00855-CCA-R3-PC, 2013 WL 709588, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 

26, 2013)(“Nothing in the record explains why the Petitioner waited over three years to 

attempt to present her coram nobis claim. The opportunity to assert her claim was within 

her control after she learned of her codefendant’s guilty plea in late 2003 or early 2004, 

and nothing prevented her from seeking coram nobis relief while the motion to reopen 

was pending”); Jerry Kevin Duke v. Sate, No. M2014-01673-CCA-R3-ECN, 2015 WL 

7566794, at *9 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 23, 2015)(“Under the facts presented in this case, 

the petitioner’s almost sixteen-month delay in filing his claim based on the newly 

discovered DHS records was unreasonable”). 

Likewise in this case, there is nothing in the record to satisfactorily explain why 

Petitioner waited eleven years after receiving the handwritten letter and five years after 

receiving the typed letter before filing her petition for writ of error coram nobis. 

Although Petitioner said that she suffered a stroke in 2009, she did not allege that it 

affected the filing of her petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner still had four 

years before her stroke to file her petition on the initial handwritten letter that she 

received in 2005. She also received the second letter two years after her stroke, and she 

waited an additional five years before filing her petition. Petitioner also indicated that 

she waited to file her petition because she was unaware that she could file a petition for 

writ of error coram nobis until 2015. However, this does not warrant tolling of the statute 

of limitations. Melissa Barnett v. State, No. E2014-02396-CCA-R3-ECN, 2015 WL 

5601537, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 23, 2015)(“[I]gnorance as to the existence of a 

claim does not create a “later-arising” claim for due process purposes”); Jacobs v. State, 

No. M2009-02265-CCA-R3-PC, 2010 WL 3582493 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 15, 

2010)(In a post-conviction case, “lack of knowledge that a claim exists does not toll the 

statute of limitations”). 

Because the petition for writ of error coram nobis was untimely and tolling of the 

statute of limitations is not required, the error coram nobis court properly dismissed the 

petition. Additionally, because we have determined that the petition is time-barred, we 
- 16 -

will not address the State’s argument that Petitioner did not offer admissible evidence to 

support her error coram nobis claim. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the judgment of the error coram nobis court is affirmed.

____________________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE