The opinion
04/06/2026
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
Assigned on Briefs March 3, 2026
DARREN BROWN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County
No. 06-08194 Chris Craft, Judge
No. W2025-01466-CCA-R3-ECN
The Petitioner, Darren Brown, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary
denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis from his conviction for first degree
premeditated murder, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. He contends
that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations and that he is entitled to
relief on the merits of his petition. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed
ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT L.
HOLLOWAY, JR., and KYLE A. HIXSON, JJ., joined.
Darren Brown, Whiteville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Elizabeth Evan, Assistant Attorney
General; and Steve Mulroy, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION
The Petitioner’s conviction relates to the April 23, 2006 fatal shooting of Darren
Taylor outside a Memphis grocery store. The trial evidence showed that the Petitioner
fired multiple gunshots into a parked vehicle in which the unarmed victim and his girlfriend
were seated. The Petitioner approached the victim’s car from behind, fired four gunshots
at the victim, and fled the scene. Additional evidence showed that the Petitioner admitted
to shooting the victim to two of the Petitioner’s friends, including Dorrell Jones, that the
Petitioner and the victim had been involved in a dispute regarding money or drugs, and that
the Petitioner alleged the victim had previously robbed the Petitioner. On appeal from the
conviction proceedings, the Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial
court’s denial of a request for a mistrial, and the prosecutor’s commenting on the
Petitioner’s post-arrest silence during closing argument. This court affirmed the
Petitioner’s conviction. See State v. Darren Brown, No. W2008-01866-CCA-R3-CD,
2010 WL 22812, at *1-4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 5, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr.
14, 2010).
On May 3, 2011, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief,
which was summarily dismissed as untimely, and this court affirmed the dismissal on
appeal. See Darren Brown v. State, No. W2012-02584-CCA-MR3-PC, 2013 WL 6405736
(Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 14, 2014).
On August 28, 2014, the Petitioner filed his first pro se petition for a writ of error
coram nobis, alleging that the prosecution failed to provide exculpatory evidence in the
form of a police statement by Dorrell Jones. The Petitioner conceded that his petition was
untimely but argued that he was entitled to due process tolling of the one-year statute of
limitations. After the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing, the coram nobis
court determined that the petition was time-barred and that the alleged evidence was not
newly discovered because the police statement was presented at the trial. This court
affirmed on appeal. See Darren Brown v. State, No. W2016-00719-CCA-R3-ECN, 2016
WL 6776347, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2016), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 13,
2017).
On April 18, 2018, the Petitioner filed a motion for plain and harmless error review,
alleging that he was entitled to relief pursuant to Tennessee Appellate Procedure Rule
36(a). The trial court denied the motion, and this court dismissed the appeal after
concluding that the Petitioner did not have an appeal as of right from the trial court’s order.
See State v. Darren Lashaun Brown, No. W2018-00907-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App.
Sept. 17, 2018) (order), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 15, 2018).
The present appeal relates to the Petitioner’s second petition for a writ of error coram
nobis. Although the Petitioner’s second petition for a writ of error coram nobis relief and
the coram nobis court’s order denying relief are not contained in the record, the record
contains the Petitioner’s March 5, 2025 motion to reconsider the denial of his second
petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The record also contains the coram nobis court’s
April 28, 2025 order denying the request to reconsider, which stated that on October 10,
2024, the court denied the Petitioner’s second petition by written order, which contained
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
This court waived the timely filing of the notice of appeal. See Darren Brown v.
State, No. W2025-01466-CCA-MR3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 29, 2025) (order).
In his appellate brief, the Petitioner contends that the coram nobis court erred by
summarily denying his second petition for a writ of error coram nobis. He asserts that he
is entitled to due process tolling of the statute of limitations and to relief on the merits of
his petition because the prosecution withheld information related to “exculpatory witness
-2-
statements of Dorrell Jones.” He requests that this case be remanded to the coram nobis
court for the appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing. The State responds
that the Petitioner has failed to prepare an adequate record to facilitate appellate review.
We agree with the State.
The Petitioner has the burden of preparing a fair, accurate, and complete account of
what transpired in the trial court relative to the issues raised on appeal. See, e.g., State v.
Bunch, 646 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tenn. 1983). This included the obligation to include the
petition for a writ of error coram nobis and the coram nobis court’s order resolving the
petition. See T.R.A.P. 24(b). “When the record is incomplete, or does not contain the
proceedings relevant to an issue, this [c]ourt is precluded from considering the issue.” State
v. Miller, 737 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). Likewise, “this [c]ourt must
conclusively presume that the ruling of the trial court was correct in all particulars.” Id.
(citing State v. Jones, 623 S.W.2d 129, 131 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981); State v. Baron, 659
S.W.2d 811, 815 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983); State v. Taylor, 669 S.W.2d 694, 699 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1983)); see State v. Ivy, 868 S.W.2d 724, 728 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993).
The Petitioner seeks appellate review of the summary denial of his second petition
for a writ of error coram nobis. However, the petition and the coram nobis court’s October
10, 2024 order denying and dismissing the petition are absent from the appellate record.
As a result, the Petitioner has failed to prepare an adequate record to facilitate appellate
review, and we must presume that the coram nobis court’s ruling on the petition was correct
in all particulars. See Miller, 737 S.W.2d at 558. The Petitioner is not entitled to relief.
s/ Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.
ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE
-3-