Workman v. State

wаrning comply require- cers with the Miranda, represent then

ments but suspect’s rights assertion perfectly

makes full statement safe. course, given the current

Of use impeach

statements to discover evidence, the

other officers’ assurances the suspect

at best mislead and at worst

directly regarding him her deceive or true state of the law. supra,

Weisselberg, diffi 161-62. It is allowing physical

cult to Miranda violation of a used as

fruits be greatly encourages question practice. Such a result should given

unacceptable, particularly that the

Court’s claims Tennessee Consti

tution affords this State’s citizens even

greater protection of individual liberties guaranteed by

than is the federal Consti

tution. reasons, I foregoing hold

For physical evidence which of Miranda violation

as a direct result suppressed. majority’s de-

should fur-

cision to allow such evidence fails ‍‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍to which the Mi- objectives upon

ther the based, and

randa decision was fails to it Mi- police violations of the

deter accused’s

randa rights. I dissent.

Philip R. WORKMAN

STATE of Tennessee. Tennessee,

Supreme Court of

at Nashville. 29, 2001.

101 oppo- filed and the answer sition filed on behalf of the of Ten- State nessee, majority of this Court concludes application granted. that should be find, Because we under the circumstances process requires that due that hearing Workman be evaluate we rеverse the decision of the Appeals affirming Court of Criminal petition trial court’s dismissal of the Hutton, TN, Memphis, Robert L. for the writ of error coram nobis. appellant, Phillip R. Workman. granted. of execution is The case Summers, Attorney Paul G. & General is remanded to Division III of the Criminal Reporter, Moore, Michаel E. Solicitor Gen- Shelby County Court for for a eral, Purden, Counsel, R. Glenn Senior petition for writ of error coram nobis. Lustre, Attorney Alice B. Assistant Gener- ease, In this the trial court held that al, and Campbell, Attorney John Assistant General, petition appellee, for the Workman’s for a writ of error State of Tennеs- see. coram nobis is barred because he failed to file it within the statute of limita Barrett,

George E. Carey, Edmond L. § tions. See Tenn.Code Ann. 40-26-105. Jr., Branstetter, D. Cecil and James G. Stranch, III, rejected ‍‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍The trial court Nashville, TN, appearing as Amicus Curiae. the due considerations dis State, cussed v. 204 S.W.2d

MAJORITY OPINION (Tenn.1992) require tolling of the statute of follow, limitations. For the reasons DROWOTA, BIRCH, HOLDER, JJ., reverse decision of the trial court opinion delivered the of the court. and order a on Workman’s Phillip R. Workman filed this action in for writ of error coram nobis. Shelby Criminal Court for County, alia, seeking, inter for writ of view, In our the due consider- error coram this sought nobis. He Burford, ations discussed in and more re- evidence, based on claims that new State, cently in Seals v. 23 S.W.3d 272 was unavailable at his trial and which has (Tenn.2000) State, v. Williams never evaluated in a been (Tenn.2001), just S.W.3d 464 released to- courts, State’s shows that actually he is day, apply greater with even force when innocеnt of murder. The trial being applied the statute of limitations is court motion on the basis that in a capital case to bar a claim that the statute of limitations barred consider- may prove petition. ation of the The Court of Crimi- capi- defendant is innocent of the Upon affirmed. consideratiоn permission appeal tal crime of which he was convicted.1 Severs, victim, robbery 1. See State pursu- intended was not in act, (Tenn.Crim.App.1988) (concluding that a felo- ance of the unlawful but rather to thwart it), ny inappropriate approval Buggs, murder conviction is cited with in State v. (Tenn.1999). killing, case in which the committed Burford, govern- discussed the due Court further stated that “[t]he this Court requirements govern represented by mental interest the three- access ease, year contained in relief. four statute is the inter- the five used to a Tenn.Code 40-30-102 convictions enhance in est the of stale preventing litigation had рersistent offender sentence been set groundless weighing claims.” After post-conviction peti- aside. Burford Id. filed interests, those the in de- Court years tion within three the date the Burford aside, prisoner’s the interest in convictions were but not termined set years mounting upon final a constitutional attack three the date of action on outweighed sentence. conviction and incarceration the This Court concluded that: in liti- preventing the State’s interest the while the statute of limitations is not gation Ac- groundless of stale and claims. face, it unconstitutional on its is uncon- in cordingly, the Court held that Burford applied рetitioner’s stitutional as in case claim, though filed beyond the the statute it him because denies due under limitations, not was barred because to the state and federal constitutions. apply the statute those circum- under conclusion, In reaching Id. at 205. right violate Burford’s to stances would that, recognized thе Court process. constitutional due may ... before a terminate a Seals, Recently, in held that this Court to comply procedural for failure with process requires tolling “due of the statute requirements such as statutes of limita- petitioner of limitations where a is denied tions, process requires due that potential opportunity to assert a reasonable litigants opportunity an for meaningful claim in a time and manner presentation meaning- of claims at a Seals, incompetence.” due to mental meaningful ful time and in a manner. explained that “if S.W.3d at 279. We mentally incompetent, was possible ... it is that under the circum- incapable, legally therefore he would be particular of a application stances his con- any opportunity to assert of the statute not afford reason- post-conviction peti- rights stitutional opportunity to have claimed tion, period limitations unless the was heard issue and decided. incom- suspended during his mental In determining Id. at 208. what is petence.” Id. post-conviction for or in other Williams, in fur- today, Just this Court words, given, what must required by explained analysis ther balancing analysis: the Court used this when Burford precise Identification of the dictates of employed post-cоnviction a claim for to bar requires consideration Williams, relief. attor- defendant’s governmental both the interests involved ney to withdraw in accordance with failed private and the interests affected Rule 14 Supreme the dictates of official action.... appeal right initial as of following thе As a re- private Appeals. that the inter- the Court of Criminal This Court stated sult, the defen- prisoner’s attorney was “a nor est at stake neither application permis- timely and dant filed an attack his conviction Eventually, appeal sion to this Court. incarceration on the he was filed and dis- deprivеd right during untimely of a was constitutional dismissal, missed, and at the of its process.” the conviction Id. 207. This time preventing litigation three months remained within which to interest stale ques- file claims. has raised serious However, relief. Williams did not file regarding tions whether he fired the shot time; within that Memphis filed nine Lieutenant that killed Police еxpiration one-year shot, months after the of the If Ronald Oliver. he did not fire Nevertheless, statutory period. the ma he is guilty he is not crime for which jority Williams remanded case put scheduled to be to death. These the trial court for a to determine claims based evidence obtained process required tolling whether due Shelby County Examin- from the Medical limitations, the statute of on the basis that long er’s Office after the conclusion appellee might “the have been denied the post-conviction proceedings. The de- opportunity challenge to in a his conviction lay in obtaining this evidenсe is not attrib- through manner no fault of his own utable to the fault ‍‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍of or his Workman possible misrepresenta but because of the fact, attorneys. previously Workman Williams, tion of his counsel.” x-ray a subpoena requesting had filed at -, 2001 WL 304163. type, provided. of this but it was not No actually court in a this State has held Clearly, contexts, variety a fully strength to evaluate the process may require tolling ap due of an circumstances, these claims. Under such plicable statute of limitations. As Bur- in obtaining hearing Workman’s interest ford, to determine due whether clearly on outweighs gov- these claims case, requires tolling in this we must con ernmental interest embodied in the statute governmental sider the interests involved of limitations. and private interests by affected precludes summary dismissal of claim this case, official action. in Burford, this as upon statutory based time bar. governmental in asserting interest statute of prevention limitations is the fact thаt this for writ groundless stale and private claims. The of error coram approxi nobis was filed petitioner’s interest involved here is the mately discovery thirteen months after opportunity to have a on the change the evidence at issue does not newly discovered evidence foregoing сonclusion. and its may have resulted in a different progeny clearly that a mandate if by jury verdict heard at If trial. opportunity afforded a “reasonable af procedural applied, time bar is expiration period ter the of the limitations put will being given to death without present meaningful claim in a time his any opportunity to have the merits of his Williams, 44 and manner.” evaluated a court State. -, Upon WL consider Weighing case, competing inter ation of the circumstances ests in the context of this we have no conclude that the time which this in concluding hesitation that due does not the rea was filed exceed precludes application of the limi pro sonable afforded Indeed, tations to bar magnitude gravity consideration of the writ of cess. “the and error coram nobis in penalty persuades this case. Work of death us that obtaining man’s interest important justify to the values which limits present newly untimely petitions discovered ... outweighed” may actual capital by having establish innocence of a interest a court eval outweighs any governmental may offense far newly uate discovered evidence that Reopen show actual innocence of the of Motion to Clark, 750, 21 In re fense. Cal.4th Cal. reopen filed motion (1993). Rptr.2d P.2d asserting post-conviction petition, scientific evidence establishes] “new reasons, foregoing For the we conclude [felony mur- [he] innocent that the decision of the trial court dismiss 40-30-217(a)(2). Tenn.Code der].” ing the writ of error coram nobis should be (1) Specifically, that an Workman contends reversed and the case remanded for a to him on x-ray, which the State hearing. hearing, At the Workman will 2, 2000, demonstrates the bul- have the to establish that new Memphis let that killed Police Lieutenant ly discovered evidence have resulted fragment, did not but in- Ronald Oliver judgment if the different еvidence had intact; body from his emerged stead previous been admitted trial. See (2) Sperry’s Dr. affi- that based Kris § Ann. If Tenn.Code 40-26-105. x-ray, interpreting davit did if showing, makes this he also estab not shoot Lt. Oliver. in failing lishes that he “was without fault” Assuming, deciding, without present evidence constitutes “new scientific evi- time, at he will appropriate the be entitled dence,” we conclude that the evi- Id; to a new trial. see also State v. dence not clear and does establish (Tenn. Mixon, 661, 673 17 983 S.W.2d n. convincing he “is inno- proof that 1999) if (setting showing required out the Dr. x-ray Sper- and cent.” The newly the discovered evidence is recanted ry’s conclusively аffidavit do not establish testimony). did fire fatal that not the shot. Workman Instead, a merely propounds this evidence C.J., BARKER, ANDERSON, J., and that theory presented than different dissenting opinion. filed a original trial. Like the the Collins, 390, 418, 113 Herrera 506 U.S. C.J., ANDERSON, RILEY and (1993), 853, 870, 122 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d BARKER, J., dissenting. WILLIAM M. appear not us an innocent does before 28, 2001, days On March two before his vergе man on execution. He is execution, Philip scheduled R. Workman who, refusing legally guilty instead a one Shelby filed in the Court for Criminal verdict, accept demands jury’s County, reopen a motion to culpability have his which to petition, declaratory judg- a request for again. once determined ment, petition fоr writ of error coram (O’Connor, 419-420, 113 Id at S.Ct. and a motion of execution. nobis for J., concurring). 2001, 29, After a on March Furthermore, agree the trial trial on all claims. The with court denied relief proves nothing that Court of Criminal affirmed. This court this evidence origi- already known from for that was not Workman’s In affida- permission appeal. majority autopsy photographs. A and x-ray, prepared prior that is to review of Court has determined vits that Sperry that the bullet petition entitled to a for Dr. concluded piece, and Lt. exited once writ of error coram nobis. For rea- struck Oliver therefore, below, not from Wоrkman’s sons stated we dissent and would did come nothing x-ray does gun. Accordingly, affirm the of the lower courts. judgments previ- Sperry’s alleged support more than corroborate Dr. factual bases (1) ous and does not therefore con- new scientific evidence affidavits fatal stitute evidence” that did not fire the shot “new scientific (2) Oliver, meaning of the statute which would be Lt. a statement killed in- by recanting sufficient alone establish Davis his trial testi- Harold nocence. mony. an error coram nobis is writ Declaratory Judgment extraordinary remedy to those available Additionally, complaint Workman filed a of crimes whо can show that convicted declaratory judgment for under Tenn.Code relating to mat- discovered evidence 102(a), §Ann. provides 29-14— at the trial have resulted litigated ters “[cjourts respective of record within their judgment pre- it been different had

jurisdictions power have the to declare §Ann sented at thе trial. 40- TenmCode rights, legal status and other relations Hart, See State v. 26-105. whether or not further relief is or could be 371, (Tenn.Crim.App.1995). sought claimed.” He declaration Judge Colton Constitution, §§ Tennessee Art. I writ of error coram it was nobis because prohibit and 32 person execution of a of limita one-year filed outside statute presents who substantial Mixon, State v. tions. See murder, factually innocent of (Tenn.1999) (citing 670-671 Tenn.Code provisions the same of the Tennessee 27-7-103). to grant The decision Constitution require evidentiary hear- or of error coram ing person when a claims actual innocence within nobis rests the sound discretion of alleges there has been fraudulent Hart, the trial court. State v. exculpatory by concealment of at 375. that he did not Workman concedes state Essentially, officials. is However, timely petition. file his citing claiming that the Tennessee Constitution (Tenn. State, v. S.W.2d prohibits per- the executiоn of an innocent 1992), applying he contends that the stat son. limitations ute of would be unconstitutional In support of these x- this case because he had neither the submits the “new scientific dis- evidence” ray nor Davis’ statement recant ‍‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍ cussed above and evidence that Harold ing testimony the limita his trial Davis, a who origi- witness testified at the Bwrford, period. tions this Court held trial, has recanted his As- testimony. suming, deciding, without our statute of limitations in limited sit certain prohibits constitution of an execution might process. uations -violate due Id. at person, innocent we would conclude as stated in previous section that evidenсe does not establish that Workman Assuming, deciding, without is innocent. during was tolled time that Workman was unaware of this of Error Coram

Writ Nobis evidence, the record this case shows year, his coram than error that more one the time nobis, limitations, alleges passed that he has should the statute trial based new since hе first became aware of the evi- primary discovered evidence. The had a reason- dence. has claims, and, present his

therefore, not implicated.

Furthermore, there is no indication that

Workman has been denied the present manner these claims possible misrepresentation to the State, counsel. v. Williams Cf. (March 29, 2001 WL 304163 S.W.3d

2001). Indeed, delay filing appears

claims to us to be a tactical deci- delay the part

sion on of counsel to obtain

in the execution his sentence. Work-

man is bound the actions of his attor-

neys taking approach. See House (Tenn.1995). State, Stay

Motion for Execution

Inasmuch as we would find merit to no relief,

any of Workman’s claims for the motion of execu-

tion. HILLARD,

Jimmy et B. al. Ruth FRANKLIN.

Buddie Tennessee,

Court of Section,

Eastern at Knoxville.

Sept.

Application Appeal for Permission Supreme

Denied Court 2001.* * Supreme Appeals’ ‍‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍opinion published. Court recommended that

Case Details

Case Name: Workman v. State

Court Name: Tennessee Supreme Court

Date Published: Mar 29, 2001

Citation: 41 S.W.3d 100

Court Abbreviation: Tenn.