State of Tennessee v. Justin David Whaley

A Hamilton County Criminal Court Jury convicted Defendant, Justin David Whaley, of
vehicular homicide by intoxication, reckless driving, driving under the influence of an
intoxicant (“DUI”), reckless vehicular homicide, and multiple driving-related
misdemeanor offenses, and the trial court merged the convictions into one conviction for
vehicular homicide by intoxication and sentenced Defendant to nine years’ incarceration.
Defendant appealed, and while his direct appeal was pending, he filed a petition for writ of
error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence. Following a hearing, the trial court
granted coram nobis relief in part, vacating Defendant’s convictions for vehicular homicide
by intoxication and DUI but denying relief as to Defendant’s remaining convictions. Both
Defendant and the State appealed the trial court’s coram nobis order, and this court
consolidated Defendant’s direct appeal with both parties’ appeals of the trial court’s coram
nobis order. On appeal, Defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence for his
convictions for vehicular homicide and DUI; (2) the denial of his motion to suppress
evidence obtained by a search warrant for a blood draw; (3) the admission of the results of
the analysis of his blood sample and the retrograde extrapolation as unreliable; (4) the
admission of testimony of a Tennessee Department of Transportation (“TDOT”) employee
as improper lay opinion; (5) the trial court’s decision to allow the jury to visit the scene;
and (6) the jury instructions on mistake of fact and reckless vehicular homicide. Defendant
also contends that the cumulative effect of the errors at trial warrants relief and that the
trial court erred in failing to grant coram nobis relief for all his convictions. In its crossappeal,
the State asserts that the trial court erred by granting partial coram nobis relief.
Upon review, we reverse the trial court’s order granting coram nobis relief for Defendant’s
convictions of vehicular homicide by intoxication and DUI, and we reinstate those
convictions. Because the trial court only imposed sentences for the vehicular homicide by
intoxication conviction, we remand for a sentencing hearing for the remaining convictions and the entry of corrected judgments reflecting separate sentences for each conviction. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.