Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville
CLARENCE D. SCHREANE
STATE OF TENNESSEE
Assigned on Briefs April 23, 2019
from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 304344 Thomas
C. Greenholtz, Judge
Petitioner, Clarence D. Schreane, appeals the Hamilton County
Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for a
writ of error coram nobis from his first degree felony murder
and especially aggravated robbery convictions, for which he
received an effective sentence of life plus sixty years. We
affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Clarence D. Schreane, Terre Haute, Indiana, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Katherine C. Redding, Assistant Attorney General; and Neal
Pinkston, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State
H. Montgomery, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court,
in which Thomas T. Woodall and Robert W. Wedemeyer, JJ.,
H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE
case relates to the 1991 robbery and killing of Marcus
Edwards. In 1999, the Petitioner confessed to participating
in the robbery of the victim's place of business and to
striking the victim with a rock before the Petitioner's
codefendant, Charles Turner, shot the victim and took the
victim's firearm and a cigar box that contained money.
The men fled the scene in the Petitioner's car. See
State v. Clarence David Schreane, No.
E2005-00520-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 891394, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Apr. 5, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug.
28, 2006). On appeal, the Petitioner contended that his
confession should have been suppressed because he was not
"given his Miranda warnings in time" and
because he confessed in exchange "for certain
concessions and a promise of leniency." Id. at
*3. This court determined that the Petitioner initiated
contact with the police to discuss the victim's murder,
that the Petitioner was not subjected to a custodial
interrogation before the officers advised him of his
Miranda rights and obtained a waiver of rights form,
and that the Petitioner's statement was voluntary and was
not the result of improper promises. Id. at *5-6.
Petitioner unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief on
the basis that he received the ineffective assistance of
counsel, in relevant part, because trial counsel did not seek
to suppress his confession on the basis that he was denied
the right to counsel. See Clarence David Schreane v.
State, No. E2009-01103-CCA-R3-PC, 2010 WL 3919264, at *1
(Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 7, 2010), perm. app. denied
(Tenn. Jan. 18, 2011). Again, this court determined that the
Petitioner was not questioned in a custodial interrogation
and that, as a result, his right to counsel was not violated.
See id. at *9. The Petitioner unsuccessfully sought
to reopen his post-conviction proceedings. See Clarence
D. Schreane v. State, No. E2012-00954-CCA-R3-CO, 2013 WL
5516430 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 2, 2013), perm. app.
denied (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2014).
the Petitioner sought error coram nobis relief on the basis
that he had obtained newly discovered evidence showing his
confession should have been suppressed. See Clarence D.
Schreane v. State, No. E2012-01202-CCA-R3-PC, 2013 WL
173193 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 16, 2013), perm. app.
denied (Tenn. May 7, 2013). He alleged that his
confession was involuntary, that he had invoked his right to
counsel, and that the prosecution violated Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Id. at *1-5.
The Petitioner's alleged newly discovered evidence was in
the form of "eight legal tapes" that contained
recordings of suspects who had been interviewed by the police
before the case "became cold" and before the
Petitioner contacted the police to discuss the victim's
killing. Id. at *5-8. The Petitioner argued the
tapes showed his confession was involuntary. Id. at
*8. This court determined that the Petitioner failed to
present newly discovered evidence that would entitle him to
error coram nobis relief. Id.
Petitioner later sought habeas corpus relief on the basis
that the indictment should have been dismissed because the
prosecution "violated Brady by not informing
the grand jury of the audiotape recordings of statements by
other witnesses and/or potential suspects." Clarence
D. Schreane v. State, No. E2013-01161-CCA-R3-HC, 2013 WL
6229527, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 2, 2013). The
Petitioner alleged that, without the recordings, the grand
jury had been unable to investigate whether sufficient proof
supported an indictment. Id. This court affirmed the
habeas corpus court's determination that the indictment
was facially valid and that the allegation related to the
grand jury investigation was not a cognizable claim for
habeas corpus relief. Id. The Petitioner was
likewise unsuccessful in obtaining federal habeas corpus
relief. See Schreane v. Ebbert, 864 F.3d 446 (6th
January 2018, the Petitioner filed the instant petition for a
writ of error coram nobis. In the petition, he stated that he
was entitled to relief, in relevant part, because (1) the
trial court judge violated his right to due process by
"allowing the jury to hear the tape [of his confession]
before a determination was made" regarding its
voluntariness, (2) the prosecution violated Brady by
failing to provide discovery materials before the trial
related to the recordings of suspects' 1991 police
interviews, and (3) his confession was involuntary in that
the police failed to advise him fully of his Miranda
rights and violated his right to counsel.
coram nobis court concluded that the Petitioner's
allegations that (1) his confession was involuntary due to
improper promises by the police, (2) his confession was
obtained in violation of Miranda, (3) the trial
court erred by failing to review the circumstances of the
confession outside the presence of the jury and to suppress
the confession, and (4) the prosecutor's failure to
provide the recordings of other suspects' police
interviews violated Brady had been previously
determined. The court ...