Scott v. State (Majority)Annotate this Case
In 2006, Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree battery and other offenses. In 2016, Appellant filed a second amended petition seeking coram nobis relief. The trial court denied relief, noting that it had found Appellant’s first coram nobis petition untimely and that the second petition “would be no timelier than the first.” On appeal, Appellant argued that he had a valid excuse for his delay because he did not become aware of an exculpatory statement allegedly withheld by the State until the time immediately before he filed his first petition for coram nobis relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court erred in limiting its examination of the due diligence requirement to the length of time from Appellant’s imposition of sentence without giving due consideration to Appellant’s claims regarding when he became aware of the allegedly exculpatory statement; and (2) Appellant stated sufficient allegations that may satisfy the due diligence requirement, and factual determinations were essential in deciding whether the writ should be granted.