Darren Brown v. State of Tennessee
W2016-00719-CCA-R3-ECN
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- Darren Brown was convicted of first-degree murder in 2008 for shooting Darren Taylor and received a life sentence; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- A post-conviction petition filed later was dismissed as untimely and that dismissal was affirmed.
- On August 28, 2014, Brown filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis claiming the State failed to produce an exculpatory second statement by witness Dorrell Jones; Brown said he learned of the statement June 19, 2014.
- The coram nobis court appointed counsel, held a hearing, and denied relief as (1) the statement was not newly discovered because its content was presented at trial, and (2) the petition was time-barred.
- Brown appealed, but on appeal he did not argue or show why the one-year coram nobis statute of limitations should be tolled or otherwise rebut the timeliness ruling.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, finding the petition untimely, the timeliness argument waived, and that Brown failed to show he was without fault in failing to present the evidence at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of coram nobis petition (one-year rule) | Brown conceded untimely but argued due process should toll the limitations because he only learned of the statement in 2014 | State: petition is outside the one-year statutory period and Brown did not show tolling or rebut the defense | Court: Petition untimely; Brown waived any tolling argument on appeal and is not entitled to tolling |
| Whether Jones’s second statement was "newly discovered" evidence | Brown: Jones’s undisclosed statement was newly discovered and could have affected the verdict | State: The substance of the statement was presented at trial; not new | Court: Not newly discovered — the content was part of trial evidence; Brown failed to show he was "without fault" for not presenting it earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hart, 911 S.W.2d 371 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (scope of coram nobis relief for newly discovered evidence)
- Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587 (Tenn. 2003) (petitioner must be "without fault" for failing to present evidence earlier)
- State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (reasonable diligence standard for discovering new information and coram nobis analysis)
- Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and notice requirements)