Jared Scott Aguilar v. State of Tennessee
M2019-01814-CCA-R3-ECN
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jun 25, 2021Background
- Aguilar was indicted for multiple counts of possessing child pornography after Investigator Mike Cereceres alleged he downloaded three images from the defendant’s IP via file‑sharing; a subsequent forensic exam of a seized laptop identified over 160 images under a “Jared” user profile on a computer named "Jared and Brittany."
- Trial court denied Aguilar’s motion to suppress; jury convicted him and the convictions and 10‑year sentence were affirmed on direct appeal (Aguilar v. State).
- Aguilar pursued post‑conviction relief (denied), raised ineffective‑assistance claims (denied on appeal), and lost federal habeas review. Key contested facts included whether the images originated from the FrostWire shared folder, alleged inconsistencies between reports and testimony, and possible contact between investigators and Aguilar’s then‑wife.
- In 2019 Aguilar filed a pro se writ of error coram nobis asserting newly discovered evidence: the search‑warrant affidavit and trial testimony contained false statements (three images found in shared folder; perjured forensic testimony) and undisclosed contact with his ex‑wife. He also sought tolling for post‑conviction counsel’s alleged failures.
- The coram nobis court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief, finding Aguilar relied on evidence already known or litigated and failed to show newly discovered facts or that he was without fault in not presenting them earlier. This appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Aguilar's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appellate filing | Notice of appeal should be deemed timely because pro se, incarcerated filing delivered to prison officials within the appeal period; initial misfiling excusable | Notice was untimely under Rule 4(a) | Court waived strict timeliness and permitted appeal given pro se incarcerated filing and prior timely but misdirected attempt |
| Statute of limitations for coram nobis (one‑year) | Limitations tolled because post‑conviction counsel failed to raise these grounds; petitioner lacked fault | Petition untimely; limitations not tolled absent due process showing | Court noted petition filed well after one year but did not dismiss on that ground; ultimately resolved on merits and other grounds (no tolling shown) |
| Whether petition pleaded newly discovered evidence (false affidavit, perjury, collusion) | Affidavit and trial testimony contained falsehoods and forensic report contradicts testimony; those are newly discovered and would have changed result | Alleged inconsistencies were known at trial or discoverable and thus are not newly discovered evidence; claims rehashed earlier litigation | Court held allegations were not newly discovered; claims relied on trial record and prior proceedings and therefore not cognizable in coram nobis |
| Whether claims were previously litigated/repackaged; petitioner without fault for not presenting earlier | Post‑conviction counsel failed to preserve claims; petitioner relied on counsel and was without fault | Claims were litigated or could have been litigated; petitioner failed to show he was without fault | Court affirmed coram nobis denial as claims were repackaged/previously determined and petitioner did not show lack of fault |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ganoe, 538 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2008) (use of file‑sharing software can eliminate expectation of privacy in shared files)
- Payne v. State, 493 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. 2016) (coram nobis addresses newly discovered evidence that could change the outcome)
- Nunley v. State, 552 S.W.3d 800 (Tenn. 2018) (coram nobis timeliness is an essential element shown on petition face)
- Mixon v. State, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999) (coram nobis is extraordinary and narrowly available)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (procedural mechanism for challenging knowingly false statements in warrant affidavits)
- State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (purpose of coram nobis is to reveal previously unknown facts that could alter judgment)
- United States v. Brown, 828 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2016) (probable cause review for affidavits limited to four corners of affidavit)
- State v. Alberts, 354 S.W.3d 320 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011) (same principle on affidavit four‑corners review)
- Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001) (statute of limitations for coram nobis tolled only for due process reasons)