Tommy Nunley v. State of Tennessee
552 S.W.3d 800
| Tenn. | 2018Background
- Tommy Nunley was convicted of aggravated rape in 1998 and exhausted direct appeal and post-conviction proceedings; evidence from the sexual-assault kit was later lost or destroyed.
- In 2014 the State filed a response in a separate post-conviction DNA petition attaching four exhibits (including a prosecutor’s memo) Nunley says reveal pretrial DNA testing that exonerated him.
- Nunley filed a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis in May 2016 alleging the State withheld exculpatory Brady material and requesting a new trial.
- The trial court dismissed the coram nobis petition without a hearing, finding it untimely under the one-year coram nobis statute and that the exhibits were not newly discovered evidence; the Court of Criminal Appeals declined to reach timeliness (saying the State hadn’t pled it) and affirmed on the merits.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review and held (inter alia) that coram nobis is not the proper vehicle for a Brady constitutional claim, that coram nobis petitions may be dismissed on their face, and that timeliness and any equitable-tolling facts must appear on the petition’s face.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Brady due-process claim is cognizable in a coram nobis petition | Nunley: Brady claim can be raised in coram nobis because exhibits show suppressed exculpatory tests | State: Brady claims are constitutional and belong in post-conviction proceedings, not coram nobis | Court: Coram nobis is not the appropriate procedural vehicle for a Brady constitutional claim; such claims should be pursued in post-conviction proceedings |
| Whether a coram nobis petition may be summarily dismissed on its face without a hearing | Nunley: Trial court should have held a hearing and allowed discovery to test the State’s possession of exculpatory evidence | State: Trial court may dismiss facially insufficient coram nobis petitions | Court: Petitions with insufficient, non-specific allegations may be dismissed on their face without discovery or an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.03 requires the State to plead the coram nobis statute of limitations as an affirmative defense | Nunley: Because State didn’t plead statute at trial, appellate courts cannot consider timeliness and petitioner was entitled to notice | State: Timeliness is an element the petitioner must plead; coram nobis is governed by statutory civil writ provisions, not Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.03 | Court: Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.03 does not apply; the one-year coram nobis limitations is an essential element that must appear on the face of the petition (overruling prior contrary cases) |
| Whether equitable tolling may be invoked without factual support in the petition | Nunley: He became aware of exhibits in July 2014 and is entitled to tolling and an evidentiary hearing | State: Nunley failed to plead facts showing entitlement to tolling | Court: If equitable tolling is sought, the petition must plead specific facts demonstrating it; here Nunley failed to plead such facts and the petition was untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (United States 1963) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory evidence)
- Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001) (due-process tolling of coram nobis statute may be required where petitioner obtained evidence through no fault of counsel)
- Harris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2010) (discussing coram nobis standards and petition sufficiency)
- Payn e v. State, 493 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. 2016) (requirements for coram nobis showing: particularity, admissibility, credibility, diligence, and possible different result)
- Vasques v. State, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (standard whether newly discovered evidence "may have" resulted in a different judgment)
- Wilson v. State, 367 S.W.3d 229 (Tenn. 2012) (coram nobis and post-conviction distinctions; discussion of timeliness and tolling)
- Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (previously held statute of limitations was an affirmative defense—overruled insofar as inconsistent with this opinion)
- Mixon v. State, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999) (historical discussion of coram nobis in Tennessee)