Cameron Brown v. State of Tennessee
M205-01434-CCA-R3-ECN
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- Cameron Brown pleaded guilty in 2008 to multiple theft counts, forgery, worthless check, and failure to appear; later pleaded guilty in 2011 to escape; aggregate effective sentence became 13 years after alternative sentencing was revoked.
- In Feb. 2015 Brown filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging newly discovered evidence (a third party’s alleged confession to the forgery), ineffective assistance of counsel, misunderstanding of plea consequences, and that he received a longer effective sentence than agreed.
- The coram nobis court held a hearing, found the petition untimely and deficient in specificity and affidavit, but nevertheless vacated the 2008 forgery conviction (count three) while stating the vacatur did not affect Brown’s overall 13-year sentence.
- The State appealed, asking reinstatement of the forgery conviction and challenging the trial court’s grant of any coram nobis relief.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the vacatur and affirmed denial of all other coram nobis relief, holding coram nobis is not available to attack guilty pleas, the petition was time-barred, and the trial court abused its discretion in granting relief without proof.
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of coram nobis to attack guilty pleas | Coram nobis may be used to challenge his guilty-pleaded convictions (new evidence etc.) | Coram nobis is not an available remedy to collaterally attack guilty pleas | Coram nobis is not available to attack guilty pleas (court follows Clark D. Frazier overruling Wlodarz) |
| Timeliness / statute of limitations | Tolling required because Brown learned of alleged confession only after incarceration in Oct. 2014; court had jurisdiction to hear claims | Petition filed after one-year limitations; State preserved defense by fair notice and ability to rebut; timeliness bars relief | Petition was time-barred; Brown failed to show due-process tolling; coram nobis court should not have proceeded but did; appellate court affirms bar |
| Newly discovered evidence (forgery confession) | Brown asserted third party (Samantha Amons) confessed to forging the check and that this is newly discovered evidence that would have prevented his plea | State argued information was available earlier and Brown was charged under theory of criminal responsibility; no sworn proof presented | Brown presented no credible sworn proof; even if considered, collateral relief not available for guilty pleas; vacatur of forgery was improper |
| Trial court’s exercise of discretion in granting relief | Trial court could set aside count three despite defects and timeliness because it found the claim meritorious | Grant of relief was an abuse because petition was untimely and unsupported by evidence | Trial court abused discretion by granting vacatur without evidence and despite lack of jurisdiction; vacatur reversed and conviction reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Mixon v. State, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999) (describes coram nobis as an extraordinary remedy and one-year filing rule)
- Vasques v. State, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (standard for coram nobis newly discovered evidence review)
- Phelps v. State, 329 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2010) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (statute of limitations is an affirmative defense in coram nobis)
- Wilson v. State, 367 S.W.3d 229 (Tenn. 2012) (failure to raise statute as affirmative defense does not waive it if opposing party had fair notice)
- Harris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2010) (due process tolling of statute of limitations is reviewed de novo)
- Wlodarz v. State, 361 S.W.3d 503 (Tenn. 2012) (earlier decision allowing coram nobis to attack guilty pleas, later overruled)