State of Tennessee v. John Lowery, E2016-00587-CCA-R3-CD

John Lowery was convicted in 1998 of first-degree premeditated murder and attempted first-degree murder; convictions and consecutive sentences affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2011 Lowery petitioned for a writ of error coram nobis alleging two trial witnesses recanted their identifications and a newly discovered witness would place Lowery away from the scene.
Trial court initially dismissed the petition; this court reversed the summary dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
At the coram nobis hearing Boatwright (surviving victim) and Hardin recanted or disavowed their prior identifications; cashier Turner provided testimony placing Lowery not present but admitted she ducked and did not see the shooter clearly.
Trial court found Boatwright and Hardin not credible, found Turner’s testimony cumulative of prior alibi witnesses, and denied coram nobis relief; this appeal affirmed that denial.

Issue	Lowery's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether coram nobis relief should be granted based on recanted and newly discovered witness testimony	Recantations and new witness evidence are newly discovered and might have changed the verdict	Evidence is not credible and cumulative; petition also time-barred	Denied: court found recantations not credible and new witness cumulative; no relief
Whether the coram nobis petition was barred by the one-year statute of limitations	Due process tolling required because claims of actual innocence are later-arising	Petition filed >10 years after final judgment; should be dismissed as untimely	Rejected: prior appellate remand on timeliness is law of the case; State waived timeliness earlier; court did not dismiss on statute ground
Proper standard and burden for coram nobis proceedings	Lowery argued entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on newly alleged evidence	State argued trial court properly weighed credibility and applied statute	Held: coram nobis relief discretionary; trial court acted within its discretion in credibility assessment
Whether credibility findings should be revisited on appeal	Lowery urged appellate reconsideration of witness credibility	State urged deference to trial court’s live witness observations	Held: appellate courts defer to trial court credibility findings; no reassessment performed

State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (coram nobis relief lies within trial court discretion)
State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999) (computation of coram nobis limitations period and due diligence rule)
Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001) (due process may require tolling limitations for actual innocence claims)
Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) (due process requires meaningful opportunity to present claims despite procedural bars)
Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (three-step test for later-arising grounds and tolling analysis)
Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Bd., 975 S.W.2d 303 (Tenn. 1998) (law-of-the-case doctrine explained)
State v. Ratliff, 71 S.W.3d 291 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (coram nobis based on recanted testimony requires court to be reasonably satisfied prior testimony was false and current testimony true)
Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2009) (appellate courts must defer to trial court credibility determinations)