The Tennessee Supreme Court today affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a prisoner’s petition to consider newly discovered evidence, known as an error coram nobis petition. The Supreme Court clarified that if the error coram nobis petition is not filed within one year after the conviction, the trial court may only consider it if the petition presents newly discovered evidence that clearly and convincingly shows the defendant did not commit the crime.
In 2005, a group of men opened fire at a Davidson County autobody shop, killing one person and wounding two others. Thomas Clardy was the only person charged and convicted in the crime. He was sentenced to life in July 2007.
Mr. Clardy’s convictions were affirmed on appeal. However, years after his conviction, Mr. Clardy was allowed to have a firearms expert re-examine bullet casings recovered from the crime scene. The expert matched the bullet casings to guns used in later crimes involving two men, Dantwan Collier and Thomas Collier, who were never charged in the crime for which Mr. Clardy was convicted.
Mr. Clardy filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the firearm expert testimony revealed a possible alternate suspect for the crime. The post-conviction court rejected this argument because bullet casings matching a gun used months later by someone else did not show Mr. Clardy did not commit the crime. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in 2018.
Late in 2019, Mr. Clardy obtained an affidavit from Dantwan Collier stating he had never met Thomas Clardy and never received any property from him. In December 2020, over 13 years after his conviction, Mr. Clardy filed an error coram nobis petition claiming he should get a new trial based on new evidence—the affidavit from Dantwan Collier. The Davidson County District Attorney agreed even though the petition was filed many years after his conviction became final.
Under Tennessee law, an error coram nobis petition must be filed within one year after the conviction. After that period, a petition can be considered only if it presents newly discovered evidence showing that the prisoner is actually innocent of the crime. Even if Dantwan Collier's affidavit were found credible and true, it did “not rule out or even seriously undermine” Mr. Clardy’s involvement in the crime and did not show he was actually innocent.
For that reason, the post-conviction court held that this evidence was not a valid basis to extend the one-year time limit and dismissed Mr. Clardy’s petition.
Mr. Clardy appealed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed this decision by holding that the post-conviction court should have extended the time limit and considered Mr. Clardy’s petition.
The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission for appeal by State authorities.
On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court balanced Mr. Clardy's liberty interest against State interests in finality of criminal convictions and held that extending beyond one year is permissible only with newly discovered evidence proving clear innocence.
The Supreme Court concurred with earlier findings that presented evidence failed to clearly prove innocence; thus affirming dismissal of Mr.Clary's case while reversing previous appellate decisions favoring him.
Justice Jeff Bivins concurred with judgment but issued separate opinion joined by Justice Sharon G Lee
To read opinions authored by Chief Justice Holly Kirby & Jeffrey S Bivins visit TNCourts.gov
###