RUTHERFORD COUNTY, Tenn. (WGNS News) - The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has upheld a Rutherford County judge’s decision to dismiss an inmate’s attempt to withdraw a guilty plea based partly on information obtained through Google Maps and artificial intelligence.

David C. Sands appealed after the Rutherford County Circuit Court rejected his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, a limited legal remedy that allows a defendant to seek relief based on newly discovered evidence. Sands claimed the information demonstrated his innocence, but the appellate court determined that it was not relevant to the offense for which he was convicted. Prison profile photo above and below this article. 

52-Year-old Sands pleaded guilty in Rutherford County on Sept. 22, 2014, to possessing more than one-half gram of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. He had originally been indicted on an allegation involving the sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school.

Under the plea agreement, Sands received a 10-year sentence to be served through community corrections rather than immediate incarceration. After he later violated the conditions of that sentence, a judge revoked his community corrections placement on July 13, 2023, and ordered him to serve the original sentence in confinement.

In July 2025, Sands filed a petition seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. He argued that a Google map and “AI assistance” showed that the alleged cocaine transaction occurred more than 1,000 feet from a school. He characterized that information as newly discovered evidence of actual innocence.

The Rutherford County court dismissed the petition, noting that Sands was not ultimately convicted of selling or possessing cocaine within a school zone. Instead, he pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. Therefore, the distance between the alleged transaction and the school did not change the offense reflected in his conviction.

The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the local court and identified two major legal problems with Sands’ request.

First, the appellate judges explained that a writ of error coram nobis generally cannot be used to challenge a conviction that resulted from a guilty plea. Tennessee’s Supreme Court has held that this remedy applies to newly discovered evidence concerning matters litigated during a trial. Because a guilty plea does not involve an adversarial trial in which evidence is presented and contested, the remedy was not available to Sands for the purpose he proposed.

Second, the petition was filed far beyond the applicable one-year statute of limitations. Sands’ judgment became final in October 2014, giving him until October 2015 to file the petition. He did not submit it until July 21, 2025 - approximately 10 years and nine months after the judgment became final.

Courts may sometimes extend that deadline when newly discovered evidence clearly establishes actual innocence. However, the appellate court found that the map and AI-assisted information did not meet that standard because the school-zone distance was unrelated to the possession-with-intent offense to which Sands pleaded guilty.

The judges concluded that even if the map were accurate, it would not prove that Sands was innocent of possessing cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. As a result, the information did not provide a legal basis to extend the filing deadline or reopen the conviction.

The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s dismissal, leaving Sands’ conviction and sentence in place. The appellate opinion was issued by Judge J. Ross Dyer, with Judges Robert L. Holloway Jr. and Matthew J. Wilson joining in the decision.