Mark C. Noles v. State of Tennessee

Petitioner, Mark C. Noles, appeals from the post-conviction court's denial of both a petition for post-conviction relief and a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner was convicted in Rutherford County of attempted aggravated arson in 2004 and sentenced to serve seventeen years as a Range II, multiple offender. After an unsuccessful direct appeal, Petitioner sought post-conviction relief in the form of a pro se petition. See State v. Mark C. Noles, No. M2006-015340CCA0R30CD, 2007 WL 3274422, at *1-7 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 6, 2007), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Apr. 7, 2008). Counsel was appointed and an amended petition for post-conviction relief and petition for writ of error coram nobis were filed. Among other things, Petitioner sought relief on the basis that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he recently discovered new evidence indicating that one of the main witnesses at trial had recanted his testimony. After a hearing, the postconviction court dismissed the petition for writ of error coram nobis as time-barred and denied post-conviction relief. Petitioner appeals. On appeal, the following issues are presented for review: (1) whether Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when trial counsel failed to advise Petitioner of the right to allocution, failed to subpoena a witness, and failed on appeal to contest the jury instructions; (2) whether the post-conviction court improperly refused to recuse itself from the post-conviction proceedings; (3) whether the post-conviction court improperly refused to allow Petitioner to present two witnesses at the post-conviction hearing; and (4) whether the post-conviction court improperly dismissed the petition for writ of error coram nobis. After a thorough review, we conclude that the post-conviction court properly dismissed the writ of error coram nobis as untimely. Further, we determine that the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to recuse itself; that the post-conviction court did not deny Petitioner the right to present witnesses at the post-conviction hearing; and that Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.