Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

May 17, 2017

JAMES R. WILSON
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE

          Assigned on Briefs November 8, 2016

         Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 98-D-3052 Steve R. Dozier, Judge.

         Petitioner, 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.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed.

          James 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 Tennessee.

          Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Alan E. Glenn and Robert W. Wedemeyer, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          THOMAS T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE.

         Petitioner 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 findings:

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 12.
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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.