Tornita N. Crenshaw v. State of Tennessee, M2016-01045-CCA-R3-ECN

Background

Tornita N. Crenshaw was convicted by a Davidson County jury (2008) of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count of coercion of a witness; effective sentence 23 years.
The crimes involved forcible entry into victims’ residence, theft of recording equipment, sexual assaults, threats and restraint of victims; co-defendants were convicted as well and convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
Crenshaw filed a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis on April 11, 2016 raising multiple grounds (e.g., ineffective assistance, improprieties in police interview, absence at sentencing, perjured witnesses, sentencing enhancements from prior arrests, juvenile transfer issues, lack of transcript due to indigence).
The trial court dismissed the coram nobis petition on April 25, 2016 as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations and found the claims were not newly discovered evidence that would have changed the judgment.
On appeal, Crenshaw argued the petition raised newly discovered evidence and that due process tolled the limitations period; the State argued the claims were not newly discovered and the petition was untimely.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding the claims were not “later-arising,” coram nobis is not available for ineffective assistance, and tolling was not warranted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coram nobis petition was timely / whether statute of limitations should be tolled	Crenshaw argued newly discovered evidence and due process tolling (consecutive sentencing despite age, absence of parents at interview, counsel deficiencies) justify relief	State argued petition filed >1 year after final judgment and grounds are not newly discovered; limitations stand	Petition untimely; one-year limit applies and was not tolled; dismissal affirmed
Whether petitioner’s claims constituted "newly discovered evidence" for coram nobis	Crenshaw claimed evidence she cites was not available earlier or would change outcome	State maintained the alleged grounds were known at trial and could have been litigated earlier; not newly discovered	Court held claims were not later-arising or newly discovered; coram nobis relief unavailable
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel is cognizable in coram nobis	Crenshaw alleged counsel advised withdrawal of post-conviction petition and other errors	State argued ineffective assistance is not proper coram nobis relief	Court held ineffective assistance is not cognizable in coram nobis
Whether due process required tolling to allow belated coram nobis petition	Crenshaw argued Burford/Harris due process tolling should apply to allow her claims to be heard	State argued Burford tolling requires later-arising claims of actual innocence and balancing did not favor tolling here	Court applied Burford/Sands framework and found no later-arising claim; due process tolling not triggered

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999) (coram nobis is extraordinary and narrow remedy)
Harris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2010) (one-year coram nobis limitations and due process tolling for actual innocence claims)
Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1995) (Burford three-step test for tolling limitations)
Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) (due process requires meaningful opportunity to present claims)
Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) (claim must be later-arising to trigger tolling)
Workman v. State, 111 S.W.3d 10 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for coram nobis)
State v. Hart, 991 S.W.2d 371 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (discretionary nature of coram nobis relief)
Brown v. State, 928 S.W.2d 453 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (discovery or ignorance of claim does not create later-arising claim)
Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (same principle on later-arising claims)