The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has upheld the dismissal of Alexander Carino's appeal regarding a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The court ruled that Carino's petition was time-barred, which means he filed it too late. This decision affects Carino, who was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder in 2010, and it highlights the strict time limits associated with legal appeals.

The case, State of Tennessee v. Alexander Carino, was filed under docket number E2026-00300-CCA-R3-ECN. Carino had sought to overturn his convictions based on what he claimed was newly discovered evidence. However, the court found that the evidence he presented was not new and that he failed to file his petition within the required time frame.

Background

Alexander Carino was indicted in 2010 for two counts of first-degree felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. He ultimately pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder, resulting in a sentence of 21 years and six months in prison. The charge of especially aggravated robbery was dismissed as part of his plea agreement. Following his conviction, Carino did not seek any appellate or post-conviction relief until years later.

Over the years, Carino has filed multiple petitions for post-conviction relief and habeas corpus, all of which were dismissed due to being time-barred. His most recent attempt was a petition for a writ of error coram nobis filed in February 2026, where he claimed to have discovered new evidence that could potentially exonerate him.

The Ruling

The court, presided over by Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer, affirmed the coram nobis court's decision to dismiss Carino's petition. The court found that the evidence Carino relied upon had been available before his guilty plea. Judge Wedemeyer stated, "the coram nobis court found that all the alleged newly discovered evidence was readily available before the Petitioner’s plea in 2010 and, thus, did not qualify as 'newly discovered evidence' sufficient to toll the statute of limitations period."

The court also emphasized that the statute of limitations for filing a coram nobis petition is one year from the date the trial court's judgment becomes final. In Carino's case, his judgment became final in August 2010, making his February 2026 petition significantly late. The court ruled, "the Petitioner is not entitled to relief" due to the failure to meet the necessary legal requirements.

Impact

This ruling serves as a reminder of the stringent deadlines imposed on legal petitions in Tennessee. It underscores the importance of timely filing and the challenges faced by individuals seeking to overturn their convictions based on newly discovered evidence. The decision may discourage similar future attempts by others who may believe they have new evidence to present.

For Carino, this ruling means that his conviction will remain in place, and he will continue to serve his sentence. The court's decision also reinforces the notion that the coram nobis process is an extraordinary remedy, only available under specific circumstances, and emphasizes the necessity of adhering to procedural rules.

What's Next

Carino's options for appeal are limited following this ruling. The decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals is typically final unless there are grounds for further appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which is not guaranteed. As of now, there are no related cases pending that could impact Carino's situation.