Assigned on Briefs January 5, 2017
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 98-09236 Chris
Petitioner, Alfonso Chalmers, appeals the denial of his
petition for the writ of error coram nobis in which he
challenged his conviction for premeditated first degree
murder and resulting sentence of life in prison. The
Petitioner filed a petition for the writ of error coram
nobis, alleging that newly discovered mental health records
reveal that he was diagnosed as psychotic and, therefore,
unable to be convicted for premeditated first degree murder.
The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the petition,
finding that it was time-barred, was meritless, and raised
issues previously determined by this court. Following review
of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of
the coram nobis court in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules
of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Court is Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of
Alfonso Chalmers, Clifton, Tennessee, pro se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Jeffrey D. Zentner, Assistant Attorney General; and Amy P.
Weirich, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State
Everett Williams, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Alan E. Glenn and Camille R. McMullen, JJ., joined.
EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
court previously summarized the Petitioner's relevant
procedural history relating to his first degree murder
conviction as follows:
The record before us reflects that the petitioner was
convicted of first degree murder in 1999. The petitioner
appealed his conviction and sentence, and this court affirmed
the judgment of the trial court in April 2001. State v.
Alfonzo Chalmers, No. W2000-00440-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 Tenn.
Crim. App. LEXIS 245 (Jackson, Apr. 4, 2001).  The petitioner
timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the
trial court dismissed. This court affirmed the dismissal in
June 2013. Alphonzo Chalmers v. State, No.
W2002-02270-CCA-R3-PC, 2003 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 533, 2003
WL 21392819 (Jackson, June 13, 2003).
On July 31, 2013, the petitioner filed the instant petition
for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that he had obtained
newly discovered evidence that was not discoverable at the
time of his trial. The petitioner stated that his mother had
recently obtained his mental health records from the Memphis
Mental Health Institute (MMHI) after the petitioner signed a
release of records form. The petitioner contended that the
records refute the testimony of Dr. Rokeye S. Farooque and
Dr. Samuel Craddock, who testified at his trial. The
petitioner maintained that the records reflect that he had
hallucinations and was paranoid and that if the jury had
known of these problems, the outcome at trial would have been
different. The petitioner further alleged that the records
were withheld by the State in violation of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
The coram nobis court found that the petition was not timely
and should be dismissed. Additionally, the court stated that
even if the petition were timely, the petitioner's claim
had no merit. The court cited this court's opinion in the
petitioner's direct appeal, wherein this court summarized
the testimony of Dr. Craddock and Dr. Farooque, which
included the records from the MMHI. The coram nobis court
noted that both doctors had concluded that the petitioner was
malingering. Dr. Farooque also concluded that the
petitioner's problems resulted from his abuse of cocaine
and alcohol. The court held that the records were not newly
discovered evidence and "did not make any difference at
the petitioner's trial." The court observed that the
records could have been easily obtained by the petitioner
prior to trial. Additionally, the court found that the State
had not violated Brady.
Alphonzo Chalmers v. State, No.
W2014-00377-CCA-R3-ECN, 2015 WL 847131, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Feb. 26, 2015). In upholding the coram nobis court's
denial of relief on appeal, this court reasoned:
The petitioner maintained that his mother was able to obtain
the discharge plan report after he signed a release form. No
evidence indicates that the petitioner would not have been
able to obtain the records prior to trial. Moreover, as the
coram nobis court found, the issue of the petitioner's
mental health was litigated at trial. The petitioner's
trial counsel was obviously aware of the petitioner's
mental health records; accordingly, the petitioner should
have been aware of them as well. Further, the mental health
records show nothing new or inconsistent with the ...