Assigned on Briefs October 4, 2016
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 06-08194 Chris
Darren Brown, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ
of error coram nobis after the coram nobis court determined
that the petition was untimely. We affirm the judgment of the
coram nobis court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Mogy, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Darren Brown.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Jeffrey D. Zentner, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P.
Weirich, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State
Timothy L. Easter, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Alan E. Glenn and Camille R. McMullen, JJ., joined.
TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE
eight years ago, Petitioner was convicted of first degree
murder and sentenced to life imprisonment after he killed the
victim, Darren Taylor, by shooting him in the back four times
while the victim was sitting in a parked car at County Line
Grocery in Memphis. State v. Darren Brown, No.
W2008-01866-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 22812, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App.
Jan. 5, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 14,
2010). Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on direct
appeal. Id. Subsequently, Petitioner sought
post-conviction relief. The petition was dismissed as
untimely. Darren Brown v. State, No.
W2012-02584-CCA-MR3-PC, 2013 WL 6405736, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Dec. 5, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 14,
2014). This Court affirmed the dismissal of the
post-conviction petition on appeal. Id.
August 28, 2014, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for coram
nobis relief, in which he alleged that the State failed to
turn over an exculpatory statement given by one of the
State's witnesses, Dorrell Jones. Petitioner acknowledged
that the petition was untimely but argued that due process
should toll the statute of limitations. Petitioner claimed
that he was not aware of the statement until June 19, 2014.
coram nobis court appointed an attorney to represent
Petitioner at a hearing on the petition. The coram nobis
court issued a written order denying the petition on the
basis that the evidence was not newly discovered because the
"evidence was in fact presented at trial."
Additionally, the court found that the claim was
"time-barred." Petitioner filed a timely notice of
appeal, Petitioner claims that the statement of Mr. Jones
constituted newly discovered evidence and that the coram
nobis court improperly denied relief. Petitioner acknowledges
the untimely nature of the petition but fails to argue how or
why the statute of limitations should be tolled in order for
him to receive coram nobis relief. The State insists that the
petition is untimely and that Petitioner has made "no
attempt to challenge the coram nobis court's dismissal of
his petition . . . or make argument that due process should
toll the statute of limitations." We agree with the
of error coram nobis lies "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." T.C.A. § 40-26-105(b); State v.
Hart, 911 S.W.2d 371, 374 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). In
order to seek coram nobis relief, a petitioner must
"establish that the petitioner was 'without
fault' in failing to present the evidence at the proper
time." Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587, 592-93
(Tenn. 2003). To be considered "without fault, "
the petitioner must show that "the exercise of
reasonable diligence would not have led to a timely discovery
of the new information." State v. Vasques, 221
S.W.3d 514, 527 (Tenn. 2007). The coram nobis court will then