James R. Wilson v. State of Tennessee, M2016-01493-CCA-R3-ECN

James R. Wilson pleaded guilty/was convicted of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery; judgments entered Oct. 15, 1999 and Jan. 7, 2000; concurrent sentences (life and 20 years).
Wilson’s direct appeal and post-conviction petition were previously denied; a habeas petition was also dismissed and affirmed on appeal.
On June 22, 2016 Wilson filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging newly discovered evidence: (1) trial TBI documents were fabricated (lacked seals/certification), and (2) a prosecutor’s email in an unrelated case indicated the prosecutor was prosecuting an “actually innocent” man, which Wilson claims referred to him.
The trial court summarily dismissed the coram nobis petition as time-barred (filed well beyond the one-year limitations period) and for failing to allege newly discovered evidence that would likely have changed the verdict; the court also found the email was sarcastic/humorous and not exculpatory.
On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding the petition did not present newly discovered evidence and that dismissal was proper despite procedural questions about whether the State properly asserted the statute-of-limitations defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of coram nobis petition	Wilson: petition filed in 2016 is timely because he only discovered fabrication in 2015	State: petition filed far beyond the 1-year limitations period; no tolling applies	Petition untimely; but any procedural defect in asserting the defense was harmless because petition fails on merits
Whether TBI records are newly discovered fabricated evidence	Wilson: TBI documents lacked required seals/certifications and thus were fabricated; discovered in 2015	State: alleged defects existed at trial; cited regulation does not show fabrication; no new evidence shown	Not newly discovered; speculation and regulatory citations insufficient to show fabrication or likely different result
Whether prosecutor’s email constitutes newly discovered exculpatory evidence	Wilson: email shows prosecutor said he was prosecuting an “actually innocent” man, referring to Wilson	State: email is sarcastic/humorous between attorneys and was addressed in prior opinion; not exculpatory	Email not newly discovered evidence and does not warrant coram nobis relief
Whether due process tolls the limitations period	Wilson: implied due process concern	State: no tolling warranted	Court: due process does not preclude applying the limitations period; regardless, merits fail so dismissal proper

Mixon v. State, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999) (a coram nobis petition must be filed within one year of final judgment)
Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001) (due process may toll the limitations period only in narrow circumstances)
Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587 (Tenn. 2003) (the State bears the burden to plead the statute-of-limitations defense for coram nobis)
Newsome v. State, 995 S.W.2d 129 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be specifically pled)