Michelle Dawn Shoemaker v. State of Tennessee, M2016-01146-CCA-R3-ECN

Background

Michelle Shoemaker was convicted by a Jackson County jury of first-degree premeditated murder (as a party), conspiracy, solicitation, and evidence tampering; she received an effective life sentence. Co-defendants Dean Shoemaker and Robert Foutch pleaded guilty to murder and testified against her; Michelle gave multiple written statements inculpating herself but later recanted parts at trial.
Carol Kerr (Michelle’s mother) entered an Alford/best-interest plea to second-degree murder and received a 15-year sentence; the State informed the court Michelle had indicated she would testify against her mother at Mrs. Kerr’s trial.
Years after convictions became final, Michelle filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis based on a March 30, 2015 affidavit from Mrs. Kerr recanting prior inculpatory statements and asserting Michelle had no role in planning the murder.
The coram nobis court summarily denied relief, finding the affidavit was not newly discovered evidence but newly disclosed, that the petition was filed well beyond the one-year coram nobis limitations period, and that tolling under due process (Burford rule) was not warranted; the court also characterized the affidavit as an attempt to concoct a release.
On appeal, the Criminal Court of Appeals affirmed: it held (1) timeliness is an affirmative defense but can be raised sua sponte; (2) the petition was untimely and Michelle failed to show due-process tolling; and (3) Mrs. Kerr’s affidavit merely contradicted trial evidence and thus did not justify coram nobis relief.

Issues

Issue	Shoemaker's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Timeliness (one-year coram nobis statute)	Petition is timely or statute should be tolled because Mrs. Kerr’s recantation arose later and she would have incriminated herself at Michelle’s trial	Petition is untimely—judgment final 9/22/2005; petition filed ~2015; statute expired 9/22/2006	Denied: petition untimely; statute not tolled under Burford/Wilson analysis
Due-process tolling (Burford rule)	Due process requires tolling because exculpatory evidence arose later and Michelle could not compel mother to testify earlier	Michelle knew facts earlier; Mrs. Kerr waived privilege by plea; Michelle could have sought relief before limitations ran	Denied: Michelle failed to show later-arising grounds or denial of reasonable opportunity to present claim
Whether Mrs. Kerr’s affidavit is "newly discovered evidence" sufficient for coram nobis	Affidavit is conclusive recantation showing Michelle’s innocence and warrants a hearing	Affidavit merely contradicts overwhelming trial evidence (co-defendant testimony, Michelle’s prior statements); no proof provided	Denied: affidavit only contradicts trial evidence; does not qualify to change outcome
Procedural adequacy (dismissal without hearing / use of statute sua sponte)	Court erred by dismissing without hearing and by relying on statute not raised by State	Court may dismiss without hearing if petition fails to allege entitlement; statute is an affirmative defense but may be raised by petitioner or sua sponte	Denied: summary dismissal appropriate; court may consider statute sua sponte and petitioner raised timeliness issue herself

Key Cases Cited

State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (procedure and standard for coram nobis; judge must be reasonably satisfied with veracity and consider whether new evidence may have produced different outcome)
State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999) (coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy, rarely applicable)
Wilson v. State, 367 S.W.3d 229 (Tenn. 2012) (due-process tolling of coram nobis statute analyzed using Burford three-step rule)
State v. Harris, 301 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2010) (computation of when coram nobis limitations begin to run)
Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) (due-process considerations and three-step analysis for tolling limitations)
Hawkins v. State, 417 S.W.2d 774 (Tenn. 1967) (mere contradiction by newly offered evidence does not justify coram nobis relief)
Taylor v. State, 171 S.W.2d 403 (Tenn. 1943) (newly available testimony can be newly discovered evidence)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (waiver of privilege/right on entering a plea)
Alford v. North Carolina, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (establishes best-interest/Alford plea validity)