Cyrus Deville Wilson v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •         IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT NASHVILLE
    October 19, 2010 Session
    CYRUS DEVILLE WILSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
    Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County
    No. 93-A-176    Seth Norman, Judge
    No. M2009-02241-CCA-R3-CO - Filed April 6, 2011
    D AVID H. W ELLES, J., dissenting.
    I dissent from the majority opinion because I conclude that the allegations contained
    in the Petitioner’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis are insufficient to demonstrate that
    he is entitled to relief. As such, I do not think that the coram nobis court erred when it
    summarily dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
    The requirements for a writ of error coram nobis are codified in Tennessee Code
    Annotated section 40-26-105(b), which states in pertinent part as follows:
    Upon a showing by the defendant that the defendant was without fault in
    failing to present certain evidence at the proper time, a writ of error coram
    nobis will lie for subsequently or newly discovered evidence relating to
    matters which were litigated at the trial if the judge determines that such
    evidence may have resulted in a different judgment, had it been presented at
    the trial.
    Filing a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, however, does not automatically grant the
    Petitioner an evidentiary hearing on the matter. See Teague v. State, 
    772 S.W.2d 915
    , 922
    (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988) (concluding that the coram nobis court did not err when it failed
    to hold an evidentiary hearing and noting that “the petitioner failed to establish that he was
    entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding this issue”); Cole v. State, 
    589 S.W.2d 941
    , 943
    (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979) (finding that the coram nobis court did not err when it failed to hold
    an evidentiary hearing regarding a post-trial statement from the victim because the statement
    was not “newly discovered evidence”).
    Petitions for a writ of error coram nobis must contain more than vague assertions of
    what the Petitioner hopes to prove at an evidentiary hearing, but rather details of specific
    admissible evidence that demonstrate he is entitled to relief on the grounds of subsequently
    or newly discovered evidence. See Harris v. State, 
    301 S.W.3d 141
    , 150 (Tenn. 2010)
    (Koch, J., concurring) (“Judges anticipate that the petition itself embodies the best case the
    petitioner has for relief from the challenged judgment. Thus, the fate of the petitioner’s case
    rests on the ability of the petition to demonstrate that the petitioner is entitled to the
    extraordinary relief that the writ provides.”) (citations omitted). Hearings should only be
    granted for petitions that
    recite: (a) the grounds and the nature of the newly discovered evidence, (b) why
    the admissibility of the newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a
    different judgment if the evidence had been admitted at the previous trial, (c)
    the petitioner “was without fault in failing to present” the newly discovered
    evidence at the appropriate time, and (d) the relief sought by the petitioner.
    Teague, 
    772 S.W.2d at 921
     (citations omitted). Moreover, this Court has provided the
    following guidance:
    Affidavits should be filed in support of the petition either as exhibits or
    attachments to the petition or at some point in time prior to the hearing. An
    affidavit, like the testimony of a witness, must be relevant, material and
    germane to the grounds raised in the petition; and the affiant must have
    personal knowledge of the statements contained in the affidavit. Affidavits
    which fail to meet this criteria will not justify the granting of an evidentiary
    hearing since the information contained in the affidavits, taken as true, would
    not entitle the petitioner to relief.
    
    Id.
    In the instant case, the Petitioner presents only what he alleges is a copy of the
    Assistant District Attorney’s notes, which state, “Good case but for most of Ws are juveniles
    who have already lied repeatedly.” As the prosecutor’s notes do not constitute evidence that
    would have been admissible during his trial, I believe that the Petitioner has failed to allege
    grounds that entitle him to relief. Granting the Petitioner an evidentiary hearing based on the
    petition filed herein allows the Petitioner to go on a fishing expedition. In order for a petition
    for a writ of error coram nobis to merit an evidentiary hearing, the Petitioner must
    sufficiently allege in his petition that he has already caught the fish.
    It is for the foregoing reasons that I dissent.
    -2-
    _________________________________
    DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M2009-02241-CCA-R3-CO

Judges: Judge David H. Welles

Filed Date: 4/6/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014