Jerry D. Carney v. State of Tennessee, M2016-01153-CCA-R3-ECN

In 1998 Jerry D. Carney was convicted by a Davidson County jury of first-degree premeditated murder for shooting Craig Cartwright; Carney contended self-defense at trial.
Carney pursued multiple post-conviction remedies over the years (direct appeal, post-conviction, habeas, and three prior coram nobis petitions); those challenges were denied or found untimely.
In December 2014 Carney filed his fourth petition for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging newly discovered evidence: a 2014 affidavit from trial witness Natasha Holland recanting portions of her trial testimony and asserting she saw both the victim and Carney with their hands on the gun when it discharged.
The trial court dismissed the petition as untimely (filed ~15 years after the judgment became final) and concluded Holland’s affidavit did not present later-arising or newly discoverable evidence that would change the verdict; it also noted other eyewitnesses corroborated the State’s case.
On appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding Carney failed to establish due-process tolling of the one-year coram nobis statute of limitations and that Holland’s recantation did not present cognizable newly discovered evidence warranting coram nobis relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Carney)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether coram nobis petition is timely or entitled to due-process tolling based on later-arising evidence	Holland’s 2014 recantation is later-arising evidence of actual innocence that tolls the 1-year statute and permits review	Petition was filed ~15 years after final judgment; Holland’s affidavit is not later-arising new evidence and tolling is not warranted	Court held petition untimely and Carney failed to show due-process tolling; dismissal affirmed
Whether Holland’s affidavit constitutes newly discovered evidence sufficient for coram nobis relief	Affidavit recants trial testimony, asserts alternate theories (struggle, victim’s aggression, both hands on gun) that could have changed verdict	Holland’s prior statements and trial testimony were known/used at trial; cross-examination addressed inconsistencies; multiple other eyewitnesses corroborated State’s version	Court held affidavit did not present newly discovered evidence that likely would have produced a different result; coram nobis relief denied

State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999) (coram nobis is an extraordinary, narrow remedy)
Harris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2010) (due-process tolling of coram nobis limitations for newly discovered evidence of actual innocence)
Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) (statute of limitations and meaningful opportunity to present claims)
Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1995) (Burford three-step analysis for later-arising claims)
Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001) (coram nobis standard: newly discovered evidence that may have resulted in a different judgment)