Brice Cook v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting

Syllabus

I respectfully disagree with the majority's conclusion that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief based upon his claim of bias by the post-conviction judge. Rather, I conclude that the post-conviction judge's comments at the conclusion of the hearing were so egregious that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned and, thus, warranted recusal. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10, R.J.C. 2.11(A) (\A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned….\). Because the judge presided over the proceedings when disqualified from doing so, I would reverse the post-conviction court's order denying the Petitioner post-conviction relief and remand for a new hearing with a different judge.