Patrick v. State

Summary

The court denied Patrick's petition to reinvest the circuit court with jurisdiction to consider coram-nobis relief. It held that an Anders brief is not a cognizable coram-nobis ground, and that Patrick failed to show the State suppressed the DNA or hair evidence because the trial record showed the evidence was known or because the alleged additional report was unsupported. The court also concluded that any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was outside coram-nobis review and that the petition independently failed for lack of due diligence.