James Clark Jr. v. State of Tennessee
W2017-00196-CCA-R3-ECN
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- In 1992 James Clark Jr. was convicted (after a jury trial) of multiple offenses including aggravated burglary, especially aggravated robbery, theft, and attempted first-degree murder; he received an effective 127-year sentence. Convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and review was denied.
- Clark later admitted shooting two police officers and stealing a police car to avoid returning to jail for the burglaries.
- Clark filed multiple collateral challenges over the years (post-conviction, earlier coram nobis petitions) raising newly discovered evidence and Brady-type claims, which were previously dismissed as untimely or noncognizable.
- In September 2016 Clark filed a third coram nobis petition asserting: Honaker (co-defendant) recanted; crime-scene fingerprints showed only Honaker; a witness report suggesting one perpetrator; and withheld impeachment material concerning Officer Charles Woods (an alleged 1986 arrest).
- The trial court summarily dismissed the 2016 coram nobis petition as untimely and for failing to show the newly discovered evidence may have produced a different judgment. Clark appealed pro se.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, concluding the petition was time-barred (no due-process tolling) and that the claims either were previously determined or fail to state cognizable coram nobis grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Clark's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness (statute of limitations) | Petition filed 2016; tolling warranted because evidence arose later and due process requires tolling | Petition untimely; limitations is an available defense and Clark had notice of delays | Petition time-barred; limitations ran in 1993–94; no due-process tolling granted |
| Newly discovered evidence (Honaker recant/fingerprints/witness) | New affidavits and fingerprint info show Clark did not participate in burglaries/thefts; may have produced different result | Evidence is inculpatory or cumulative; prior factual record (Clark at stolen truck, negotiating sale, admission to crimes) shows guilt under criminal-responsibility theory | Previously determined or not cognizable for coram nobis; evidence would not likely have produced different judgment |
| Brady/impeachment (Officer Woods arrest) | State withheld impeachment material about Officer Woods (1986 arrest); would have impeached credibility | Material was known to Clark long before 2016; not basis for tolling or relief now | Claim is untimely and not entitled to due-process tolling; not cognizable coram nobis basis here |
| Other procedural/ineffective-assistance claims | Various claims of conflict, ineffective assistance, waiver errors, and constitutional violations should be considered | Such claims do not constitute proper coram nobis grounds or are previously addressed | These claims fail to state a cognizable coram nobis claim; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999) (coram nobis is extraordinary remedy; petitioners must exercise due diligence)
- Harris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2010) (one-year coram nobis statute of limitations and computation from final judgment)
- State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (trial judge must be reasonably well satisfied with veracity of newly discovered evidence and consider whether it may have changed result)
- Wlodarz v. State, 361 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2012) (newly discovered evidence must have been unknown to defendant and cannot be merely cumulative or impeaching)
- Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001) (due-process tolling may be required in limited circumstances balancing State interest and petitioner’s opportunity)
- Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (three-step test for due-process tolling of limitations)