Opinion ID: 1043976
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Nature of the Evidence

Text: When the Petitioner, in the case before us, filed his petition for writ of error coram nobis, he had already mounted an unsuccessful challenge to his guilty plea under the PostConviction Procedure Act. Part of the evidence in the post-conviction proceeding involved the same ballistic evidence that forms the basis of the petition for writ of error coram nobis in this case. Specifically, in the 2008 coram nobis hearing, the Petitioner alleged that prior to his 2001 plea, the State had failed to inform him that it had sent ballistic evidence to the 20 A motion to withdraw a guilty plea is likewise inadequate, as the plea can only be withdrawn (1) before the sentence is imposed, or (2) after the sentence is imposed but before the judgment becomes final to prevent manifest injustice. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(f)(1)-(2) (2011). This is, of course, a very narrow window that does not afford the same protection that a writ of error coram nobis would. -16- FBI for testing.21 The Petitioner testified in the post-conviction proceeding, however, that his trial counsel, prior to his pleading guilty, informed him that the ballistic tests had been performed on the bullet fragments and that those tests were inconclusive; trial counsel for the Petitioner likewise testified at the post-conviction hearing. Furthermore, a motion filed prior to the Petitioner’s plea acknowledged that there had “been no conclusive matches between bullet fragments found at the scene of this alleged offense and those found in the body of Officer Gibson” and that “several fragments have been sent to the FBI in order to attempt to find matches between the two groups.” The writ of error coram nobis statute—Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-26105(b)—requires that the evidentiary basis for the petition must be “newly discovered evidence.” Even if newly discovered, evidence that is merely cumulative to other evidence in the record will not suffice for the granting of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Hart, 911 S.W.2d at 375. The purpose of the writ is to bring to the court’s attention some fact that was, even in the exercise of due diligence, previously unknown. Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 915, 920 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). To be considered “newly discovered,” the evidence must have been unknown to the defendant at the time of the proceedings giving rise to his conviction. See Harris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 141, 160 (Tenn. 2010) (Koch, J., concurring). In Workman, for instance, the alleged newly discovered evidence was a medical x-ray, the type of which the petitioner had requested in discovery, but had not been provided by the State at the time of trial. Workman, 41 S.W.3d at 103. In essence, the petitioner in Workman had been under the impression that no such evidence existed, when, in fact, it did exist, and this Court held that such evidence was a valid basis for a coram nobis petition. Id. at 103-04; see also Freshwater v. State, 160 S.W.3d 548, 555-56 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (holding that summary dismissal of the coram nobis petition was improper, where despite discovery requests for such evidence, the State did not provide the defendant with exculpatory witness statements). On the other hand, a coram nobis petition will not lie where a petitioner was previously aware of the alleged “newly discovered evidence.” See Cormia v. State, No. E2010–02290–CCA–R3–PC, 2011 WL 5027107, at  (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 21, 2011) (denying coram nobis relief where the petition was based, in part, on an issue that formed the basis of an earlier post-conviction claim); Young Bok Song v. State, No. M2010–02054–CCA–R3–CO, 2011 WL 2713738, at  (Tenn. Crim. App. July 13, 2011) (denying coram nobis relief where the petitioner was aware of the alleged new evidence at trial and raised the issue in the post-conviction court). In light of the testimony at the post- 21 The Petitioner’s original argument, as stated in his petition for writ of error coram nobis, was that despite the State’s representation to the contrary, the State had not actually sent ballistic evidence to the FBI for testing. -17- conviction hearing and the contents of the motion filed prior to his plea, the Petitioner was clearly aware that the ballistic evidence had been tested and that the results were inconclusive. The Petitioner’s assertion at the coram nobis proceeding that the State had failed to inform him that the evidence had been sent for testing is inconsistent with his previous testimony in the record, and the alleged “newly discovered evidence” does not qualify as new within the meaning of the coram nobis statute.