Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
JAMES R. WILSON
STATE OF TENNESSEE
Assigned on Briefs November 8, 2016
from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 98-D-3052
Steve R. Dozier, Judge.
James R. Wilson, appeals the summary dismissal of his
petition for writ of error coram nobis that was dismissed by
the trial court as being time-barred and for failing to
allege newly discovered evidence. Petitioner now appeals the
denial of his petition. After review, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
R. Wilson, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Zachary T. Hinkle, Assistant Attorney General; Glenn R. Funk,
District Attorney General; and J. Wesley King, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
T. Woodall, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Alan E. Glenn and Robert W. Wedemeyer, JJ., joined.
T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE.
was convicted of felony murder and especially aggravated
robbery and was sentenced to concurrent sentences for life
for the murder charge and twenty years for the robbery charge
to be served in the Department of Correction. The judgments
were entered on October 15, 1999, and January 7, 2000. On
direct appeal this court affirmed the convictions. State
v. James Robert Wilson, No. M2000-00760-CCA-R3-CD, 2002
WL 1050259 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 24, 2002). On October 9,
2003, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief
that was denied by the post-conviction court. This court
affirmed the post-conviction court's denial of
post-conviction relief. James Robert Wilson v.
State, No. M2004-00933-CCA-R3-PC, 2005 WL 1378770 (Tenn.
Crim. App. June 10, 2005). Petitioner filed a subsequent
petition for writ of habeas corpus that was summarily
dismissed by the trial court, and this court affirmed the
dismissal of the petition. James Robert Wilson v.
State, No. M2016-00860-CCA-R3-HC, 2016 WL 6493234 (Tenn.
Crim. App. Nov. 2, 2016). Petitioner filed a pro se
petition for writ of error coram nobis on June 22, 2016,
alleging newly discovered evidence. He asserted the documents
from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) that were
introduced at trial were fabricated. Petitioner also alleged
that the prosecuting attorney sent an email to a defense
attorney in an unrelated case which indicated that the
prosecutor would be involved in a murder trial in which the
defendant was "actually innocent." Petitioner
argues that he was the referenced defendant. The trial court
summarily dismissed the petition and made the following
In the petition, the petitioner sets forth allegations that
the documents used by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
in this trial were fabricated. The petitioner alleges that
because the documents submitted to the Court bear neither the
seal nor certification by a TBI supervisor, they are
fraudulent or fabricated. However, it is not alleged that
these documents have changed in any way since the trial in
this matter. Therefore, they do not fall within the realm of
newly discovered evidence, and this issue is barred by the
one-year statute of limitations.
The petitioner also alleged that General [ ], Assistant
District Attorney, stated in an email that the person she was
trying that week in Division I was "actually
innocent." The entire exchange of emails is set forth
and intertwined in the case of Rhyunia Barnes v. State of
Tennessee, No. M2015-01061-CCA-R3-ENC, 2016 WL 537127
(Tenn. Crim. App. February 10, 2016). As to this email
correspondence, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
stated and this Court reiterates that "it is quite
obvious that the email exchange between [the defense counsel
in that case and the prosecutor] contains sarcasm and
attempts and "humor" by both attorneys. The e-mail
exchange certainly does not constitute newly discovered
evidence that would warrant error coram nobis relief. The
Petitioner is not entitled to relief." Id. at
Here, the petitioner's motion was filed outside the one
(1) year statute of limitations and is time-bared. The Court
finds that due process considerations do not preclude the
application of the limitations period. In addition, before
the petitioner is entitled to relief based upon newly
discovered evidence, it must be established, and the trial
court must find, that the subsequently or newly discovered
evidence "may have resulted in a different judgment had
it been presented at trial." Tenn. Code Ann. §
40-26-105. Here, none of the specified evidence alleged in
the petition is newly discovered nor would this matter have
resulted in a different judgment had it been presented at
trial. The proof in this case was overwhelming. Therefore,
the petition is dismissed.
On appeal, Petitioner raises the same issues as those in his