Tommy Nunley v. State of Tennessee, W2016-01487-CCA-R3-ECN

Tommy Nunley was convicted by a Shelby County jury in 1998 of aggravated rape and received a 25-year sentence; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
Post-conviction proceedings raised trial counsel’s alleged failure to obtain DNA testing; the post-conviction court ordered TBI testing, but the rape kit was later lost/destroyed and the court granted relief; this grant was reversed on appeal (post-conviction relief reversed).
A later Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act petition was denied because the rape kit no longer existed; that denial was affirmed on appeal.
In May 2016 Nunley filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis claiming the State withheld exculpatory forensic reports (local lab and TBI communications) and attaching lab reports, letters, and a prosecutor memo.
The trial court denied coram nobis relief (its order mis-titled as a DNA-testing denial but in substance denied coram nobis). Nunley appealed, arguing the court treated his filing as a DNA-testing request and that he had newly discovered/exculpatory evidence warranting coram nobis relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court treated coram nobis petition as a DNA-testing petition	Nunley: court mischaracterized his coram nobis filing as a DNA testing request and dismissed on that basis	State: court properly addressed the petition on its merits; title was clerical	Court: title was clerical error; the order addressed coram nobis merits, not a DNA testing motion — no error.
Whether documents attached to the petition constitute newly discovered evidence entitling Nunley to coram nobis relief (Brady/exculpatory)	Nunley: lab reports, prosecutor letters, and memo show exculpatory testing/results were known to State but not disclosed; he only learned of some documents later	State: records and prior proceedings show defense counsel knew of and consulted on the lab results; documents do not change outcome or are not newly discovered	Court: Most documents were known to trial counsel or the petitioner pretrial; remaining docs do not provide a reasonable basis to conclude a different result at trial; coram nobis denied.
Timeliness/statute of limitations for coram nobis	Nunley: petition timely presented	State: asserted dismissal appropriate (but did not raise SOL in trial court)	Court: Because State failed to plead the statute of limitations below, court considered the petition on the merits.

Mixon v. State, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999) (describes coram nobis as an extraordinary, narrow remedy)
Vasques v. State, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (standard for coram nobis: whether reasonable basis exists that new evidence might have changed the result)
Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587 (Tenn. 2003) (statute of limitations for coram nobis is an affirmative defense the State must plead)
Harris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2010) (due process tolling of statute of limitations is a mixed question reviewed de novo)
Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (procedural discussion on raising affirmative defenses)