Charles Phillip Maxwell v. State of Tennessee
M2016-02380-CCA-R3-ECN
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Aug 4, 2017Background
- Maxwell was cited March 5, 2008 for driving while his license was suspended after a traffic stop for not wearing a seatbelt; records showed a suspension though questions existed about the identity/issuance history.
- Maxwell was convicted; his direct appeal was affirmed by this Court. He later pursued post-conviction relief (records unclear), asserting ineffective assistance by appellate counsel.
- In 2016 Maxwell filed a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis asserting appellate counsel conspired with the trial judge, was a "plant," and was disciplined by the bar — facts Maxwell characterized as newly discovered evidence of ineffective assistance.
- The coram nobis court appointed counsel, who sought to withdraw; replacement counsel also withdrew after ethical/representation conflicts; Maxwell continued pro se filings.
- The coram nobis court denied relief, finding the claims amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel and did not present newly discovered evidence that would change the judgment; no hearing transcript appears in the record.
- Maxwell appealed, also challenging the coram nobis court’s order requiring him to pay court costs associated with the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis relief was available for alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on disciplinary notices/newly discovered evidence | Maxwell: Appellate counsel’s discipline and alleged conspiracy are newly discovered evidence showing ineffective assistance that deprived him of his right to appeal | State: Ineffective-assistance claims (even if based on new disciplinary notices) are for post-conviction relief, not coram nobis; Maxwell failed to show newly discovered evidence that would change the result | Denied — coram nobis inappropriate; claims cognizable in post-conviction proceedings, not coram nobis |
| Whether Maxwell was without fault in failing to present alleged new evidence earlier | Maxwell: Did not discover counsel’s disciplinary matters until 2016; thus was without fault | State: Maxwell’s allegations do not satisfy coram nobis requirements and appear previously litigated in post-conviction context | Court concluded Maxwell did not present newly discovered evidence meeting statutory standard |
| Whether the coram nobis court abused discretion by denying relief without a hearing | Maxwell: Implied right to full consideration of claims and evidence | State: Court has discretion; record shows denial on proper legal grounds | No reversible error — denial affirmed (record showed no qualifying newly discovered evidence) |
| Whether the court improperly taxed Maxwell with costs for filing the coram nobis petition | Maxwell: Court improperly ordered him to pay petition costs (asserted on appeal) | State: No specific response in opinion; argued issue waived due to lack of argument/support | Waived — issue not argued with citation/record support, so court declined to consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587 (Tenn. 2003) (coram nobis relief is limited to errors dehors the record and newly discovered evidence that could change the outcome)
- State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (trial court must be reasonably satisfied of veracity of newly discovered evidence and determine whether it might have produced a different result; granting/denying coram nobis is discretionary)