The opinion
04/13/2026
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
Assigned on Briefs March 10, 2026
COY J. COTHAM, JR. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County
No. 2010-C-2636 Mark J. Fishburn, Judge
___________________________________
No. M2025-01171-CCA-R3-PC
___________________________________
A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Coy J. Cotham, Jr., of first-degree
premeditated murder and especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court imposed a life
sentence without parole and a consecutive twenty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner
appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court’s judgments. State v. Coy J. Cotham, Jr.,
M2012-01150-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 3778613, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 31, 2014).
Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Post-
Conviction DNA Analysis Act, which the post-conviction court summarily dismissed. On
appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he is entitled to DNA testing of a blue towel recovered
from his vehicle. Following our review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s
denial of relief.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed
ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which CAMILLE R.
MCMULLEN and MATTHEW J. WILSON, JJ., joined.
Coy J. Cotham, Jr., Pikeville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Elizabeth Evan, Assistant Attorney
General; Glenn R. Funk, District Attorney General; and Janice Norman, Assistant District
Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION
I. Procedural History
This case arises from the August 29, 2010 shooting death of the victim, Veronica
Bozza, at her home in Hermitage, Tennessee. For his role in her death, a Davidson County
jury indicted the Petitioner for the first-degree premeditated murder of the victim and
especially aggravated robbery.1
At the time of the victim’s death, the victim and her estranged husband, Timothy
Roy Bozza, were in the process of a divorce and determining custody of their son. Several
months before the victim’s death, the victim was awarded more time with their son,
approximately 203 days, and a reduction in the amount of child support she owed Mr.
Bozza. Mr. Bozza was upset by this ruling. Both the victim and Mr. Bozza were required
“to carry $350,000 in life insurance, listing the other parent as the beneficiary as trustee for
their minor child.” Cotham, 2014 WL 3778613, at *8. The remaining custody issues were
unresolved at the time of the victim’s murder.
On August 29, 2010, the victim’s boyfriend, Brian Robinson, found the victim at
home at around noon, lying on the floor bleeding. He called 911, and Metro Nashville
Police Department (“MNPD”) officers responded. Police found a projectile on the floor
next to the victim’s body, a hole in the hardwood floor, and a spent shell casing on the floor
next to the wall near the back door. The couch cushions had been lifted, making it appear
as if someone had been searching for something. The victim sustained two gunshot wounds
to her head and had gunpowder residue on her hand, indicating close proximity to the
shooter at the time the gun was fired. Officers found $400 in an envelope in plain view a
few feet from the victim’s body and a blank check made payable to the victim from Mr.
Bozza with the notation “for school fees.” Id. at *3. Police officers collected four
projectiles and one nine-millimeter shell casing from the crime scene.
MNPD detectives interviewed Mr. Bozza and determined that he was not present
during the victim’s murder based upon receipts and store surveillance videotapes showing
that he was shopping at relevant times to the murder. Telephone records, however,
reflected numerous calls between Mr. Bozza and the Petitioner on the day of the murder.
Detectives developed the Petitioner as a person of interest “because it looked like [the
victim’s] cell phone was being used after the time of her death. And her cell phone was
using towers in the locations, exactly the same point, where [the Petitioner’s] cell towers
were being used after the homicide.” Id. at *4 (first alteration in original). Later, when
interviewed by law enforcement officers, the Petitioner’s statements about his whereabouts
around the time of the murder were inconsistent with the cell phone records.
After one of the detectives assigned to the case executed a search warrant at the
home of the Petitioner’s mother, the detective began receiving threatening phone calls from
the Petitioner, who initially tried to disguise his voice. The Petitioner told the detective
1
The victim’s estranged husband, Timothy Roy Bozza, also was indicted for the first-degree
premeditated murder of the victim and tried separately.
2
that he knew identifying information about the detective’s family, including where they
lived, his son’s age, and specifics about family vehicles. Later, when the detective
transported the Petitioner for booking following the Petitioner’s arrest in Kentucky, the
Petitioner told the detective he also knew where the detective’s son attended school.
Police recovered from the Petitioner’s Cadillac Escalade:
a black duffel bag containing a pair of white tennis shoes, two used blue latex
gloves, and a collapsible cooler containing a black Nike hat and a Condor
brand black tactical sleeve, which could be worn around the head as a scarf
or face mask; a pawn ticket transaction from Toliver’s Pawn and Loan dated
August 25, 2010; two brown towels found in the backseat; a cell phone
charger with a phone connected to it; a pair of black gloves; and a blue hand
towel.
Id. at *5.
At trial, Mr. Bozza testified that he and the victim were married for about seventeen
years and shared a son. At the time of the victim’s death, they had been separated for about
fourteen months, and their divorce was close to being finalized. Mr. Bozza acknowledged
that there was conflict with respect to their divorce and custody arrangements for their son.
Mr. Bozza said that he had known the [Petitioner] for about thirteen
years and that, about ten years ago, the [Petitioner] had lived with him and
the victim for a few months. The [Petitioner] left Nashville for a period of
time, and Mr. Bozza next saw him at the courthouse the day of Mr. Bozza’s
custody hearing. They renewed their friendship, and the [Petitioner] began
working for Mr. Bozza. Asked if he and the [Petitioner] had ever discussed
killing the victim, Mr. Bozza replied, “Well, yes, sir. I made a bad joke one
day about a movie that—in the middle of a session we were both complaining
about.” He said that he brought up the issue “in a moment of anger” and that
it was then dropped. He denied offering the [Petitioner] $10,000 to kill the
victim. However, the [Petitioner] offered him $10,000 “to take care of Laura
Yancey . . . the girl who was living with husband who had custody of his
son.” Mr. Bozza said he told the [Petitioner] he “could never do anything
like that.” Mr. Bozza denied any knowledge of the [Petitioner]’s following
the victim on numerous occasions prior to her death.
Regarding the day of the victim’s murder, Mr. Bozza acknowledged
that he talked to the [Petitioner] several times that day but said they only
talked about “average bologna kind of stuff.” He said he met the [Petitioner]
3
at a grocery store near St. Edward’s Church, where he was waiting to pick
up his son from the victim. The [Petitioner] was driving a minivan that
belonged to the woman with whom he lived, Jennie. After they parted ways,
the [Petitioner] called Mr. Bozza and said that “it was done.” Mr. Bozza
denied knowing what the [Petitioner] was referencing because they had
discussed “a number of things that day that could have fit at that point in
time.” He later called the victim’s cell phone and received a return call from
the [Petitioner] about an hour and a half later. The [Petitioner] told him to
stop calling the victim’s phone because he had it. He asked the [Petitioner]
why he had the victim’s cell phone, and the [Petitioner] told him that “he had
taken care of [Mr. Bozza’s] problem and that [the victim] wouldn’t be a
problem for [him] anymore.” Mr. Bozza said that a few weeks after the
victim’s murder, the [Petitioner] came by his mother’s house and asked him
for $35,000.
Mr. Bozza acknowledged that he had had numerous meetings with the
police and the district attorney’s office but denied telling them that he had
any knowledge of the victim’s murder prior to its happening. A redacted
portion of his November 16, 2010 videotaped statement was then played for
the jury. After the tape was played, the following colloquy occurred:
Q. (By [the prosecutor]) Mr. Bozza, you admit that that’s inconsistent
with what you’ve testified to today, is it not?
A. Yes, sir. I was taking things in a different context. But, yes, sir.
Q. You were taking things in a different context today or then?
A. No, today, sir. That is clear what was said.
Q. That’s the truth?
A. Yes, sir, that’s what was said.
On cross-examination, Mr. Bozza said that he accepted responsibility
for the statement he made “that caused everything” but denied he was taking
responsibility for planning the murder of his wife. He admitted that he lied
to Detective Crumby.
On redirect, Mr. Bozza admitted that his and the victim’s parenting
plan required that they each carry life insurance in the amount of $350,000
payable to the other as trustee for their child. Asked about what he said in
his statement as to whether he told the [Petitioner] he would give him
$10,000 to kill the victim, Mr. Bozza said, “[W]hen he offered, I said, that
sounds like a good plan right there, but I can’t necessarily do that [the killing]
myself.” Asked to clarify if he meant he would give the [Petitioner] $10,000,
4
Mr. Bozza responded, “Well, it could be construed as that, yes, sir.” He
agreed that he “never backed off of anything” and that his statement could
“[a]bsolutely” be construed as an agreement to pay the [Petitioner] $10,000.
Id. at *5-6.
The Petitioner’s girlfriend at the time of these events, Jennifer Addington, took her
husband’s nine-millimeter handgun when they separated in July 2010. She stored the gun
in a maroon lunchbox that she kept in her minivan. The Petitioner occasionally drove Ms.
Addington’s van, and at the end of July, Ms. Addington noticed the gun and lunchbox were
missing. She asked the Petitioner about the missing gun, and he denied having it.
On the day of the murder, Ms. Addington was to meet the Petitioner at her home.
When she arrived at around 9:00 a.m., the Petitioner was not there. Ms. Addington went
to sleep, and the Petitioner woke her twice that day, the second time it was between 2:00
p.m. and 3:00 p.m. Ms. Addington recalled that the Petitioner left and returned, smelling
like burning leaves. Ms. Addington and the Petitioner went to an early dinner at TGI
Friday’s restaurant. At dinner, Ms. Addington noticed that the Petitioner had with him a
slimmer white phone than the Android cell phone he normally carried.
Ms. Addington initially lied to the police, saying that the Petitioner had been with
her the entire day of the victim’s murder. Before she spoke to the police, the Petitioner
told Ms. Addington not to speak with the police because the police had also asked to meet
with him to discuss Mr. Bozza. At this meeting, the police seized the Petitioner’s phone
and detained him all day. He told Ms. Addington that the police would do the same to her
and that the police would tell her “all sorts of mean things – awful things about him.”
The Petitioner also asked Ms. Addington to search her computer for news articles
related to the victim’s murder and to gather any information she could on detectives
assigned to the murder investigation. When she provided the Petitioner with some
information, the Petitioner asked if she had deleted everything. The Petitioner also asked
her to accompany him on a trip to Barbados and told her not to use her cell phone because
it was tapped.
Ms. Addington’s ex-husband realized around July 24, 2010, he was missing a Hi–
Point nine-millimeter handgun and filed a police report, listing Ms. Addington as a suspect.
He believed that the nine-millimeter gun depicted in a photograph found on the Petitioner’s
phone looked like his gun. He turned over to the police shell casings that had been fired
through his handgun.
5
In July 2010, the Petitioner showed one of his neighbors, John Schmahl, a Hi-Point
nine-millimeter gun in a maroon lunchbox and told him he recently had purchased the gun
from an individual for $350. The Petitioner called Mr. Schmahl on August 29, 2010, at
approximately 12:28 p.m., as the neighbor was driving northbound on Old Hickory
Boulevard, a few blocks past the interstate. The Petitioner told him that the Petitioner had
just driven past him.
The Petitioner called Michael Chad Wilson, a long-time acquaintance, at
approximately 2:46 p.m. on August 29, 2010, and asked how to take the battery out of an
iPhone. Mr. Wilson knew the Petitioner to always possess a very distinctive Android
phone with him.
Detective Andrew Vallee of the MNPD Criminal Investigations
Division testified that he specialized in cellular telephone records and the
analysis and mapping of those records. He analyzed call detail records for
the victim, Brian Robinson, Jennifer Addington, and the [Petitioner]. Using
the PowerPoint presentation he created, Detective Vallee explained his
findings regarding the day of the victim’s murder. Because the 9-1-1 phone
call was received at 12:30 p.m., he reviewed the victim’s cell phone records
to determine what calls were made prior to that time. The victim called Brian
Robinson at 11:51 a.m., which lasted eight minutes and started with tower
3099 near St. Edward’s Church and ended at tower 3108 near Interstate 40
and Stewart’s Ferry Pike. She next made a thirty-three-second call at 12:01
p.m. to her sister, and that call started at tower 3108 and ended at tower 3537
located at Interstate 40 and Old Hickory Boulevard. The last phone call prior
to the victim’s death was made to Garnett Jagels at 12:07 p.m., with the
victim’s phone again connecting to tower 3537. Detective Vallee said that
the most direct route from St. Edward’s Catholic Church to the victim’s
residence was about a fifteen—to twenty-minute drive. The victim’s call
pattern showed that when she was at home, she connected with AT & T tower
3035, which was the closest tower. Mr. Bozza called the victim’s cell phone
at 1:48 p.m., connecting to antenna 3037 which was located 1.8 miles from
Addington’s residence. At 1:49 p.m., the victim’s cell phone received a
voicemail notification, which connected to AT & T antenna 3037. The
voicemail was accessed at 1:50 p.m. There was no activity on the victim’s
phone from 7:40 p.m. that day until August 31 at 10:53 a.m. when her phone
transmitted data and connected to AT & T antenna 3150 near the Waste
Management Nashville transfer station located at 1428 Antioch Pike. At
1:44 p.m., her phone again transmitted data from AT & T antenna 3077 near
the Waste Management Landfill in Camden, Tennessee. Detective Vallee
said that the victim’s cell phone was likely thrown away, went to the
6
Nashville transfer station on Antioch Pike, and then was transported by
garbage truck to the landfill in Camden.
Detective Vallee said that they had information indicating that Mr.
Bozza was at Holt’s Cee Bee in Ridgetop, Tennessee, at the time of the
victim’s murder. After analyzing Mr. Bozza’s phone records, Detective
Vallee learned that Mr. Bozza called the [Petitioner] thirteen times on the
day of the victim’s murder, seven times prior to her murder and six times
afterwards. He then requested the [Petitioner]’s phone records, which
showed that between 10:46 and 11:05 a.m. on the day of the victim’s murder,
the [Petitioner]’s phone was connecting to Verizon antenna 531, near
Jennifer Addington’s residence. At 11:14 a.m., the [Petitioner] called Mr.
Bozza, connecting to Verizon antenna 139 near Briley Parkway and Lebanon
Pike. From 11:29 to 11:43 a.m., there were five calls between the [Petitioner]
and Mr. Bozza, all connecting to Verizon antenna 61 near St. Edward’s
Catholic Church. The [Petitioner]’s cell phone also connected to a Wi–Fi
access point near the church at 11:54 a.m. The next activity on the
[Petitioner]’s phone was at 12:20 p.m., when he made a ten-second call to
Mr. Bozza that connected to antenna 117, followed by another call at 12:22
p.m. that lasted 102 seconds and began with antenna 116 and ended with
antenna 113. Antenna 113 was less than a mile from the victim’s residence,
antenna 117 was 3.06 miles, and antenna 116 was 5.14 miles. The next call
placed on the [Petitioner]’s phone was at 12:28 p.m. to John Schmahl that
began with antenna 24 and ended with antenna 139. At 12:39 p.m., the
victim’s cell phone received a text message from antenna 3052, which was
located near the intersection of Interstate 40 and Spence Lane. The next
activity on the [Petitioner]’s phone was from Verizon antenna 531 near
Addington’s house and included a 12:51 p.m. call from Mr. Bozza, a 2:24
p.m. call to Addington, and a 2:28 p.m. call from Addington. At 2:45 p.m.,
the John Schmahl called Chad Wilson, first connecting to antenna 531 and
ending with antenna 141 located at the intersection of Interstate 40 and
Interstate 24. Between 3:15 p.m. and 3:23 p.m., the John Schmahl’s cell
phone was connected to an antenna in the Hickory Hollow Mall area near
TGI Friday’s restaurant. The [Petitioner]’s phone also showed a Wi-Fi
connection access point near the restaurant. Jennifer Addington’s call
activity showed that she connected to the antenna near TGI Friday’s at 3:19
p.m., which corroborated her statement to the police.
Detective Vallee said that further analysis of the John Schmahl’s call
detail records showed that a Wi–Fi access point near the victim’s house was
logged on the [Petitioner]’s phone at 6:13 a.m. on August 26, 2010, three
7
days before the victim’s murder. The [Petitioner] called Mr. Bozza that day
at 6:32 a.m. and talked for seven and a half minutes.
Id. at *10-11.
On September 2010, the Petitioner was arrested in Glasgow, Kentucky at Brenda
Pittman’s residence. Ms. Pittman’s computer was confiscated and turned over to a forensic
examiner, for analysis.
Detective Gish testified that he analyzed the [Petitioner]’s Android
cell phone and recovered numerous photographs. One photograph dated
August 2, 2010, was of a nine-millimeter pistol with a loaded clip lying next
to it. Another photograph dated August 13, 2010, was of a mattress with
what appeared to be bullet holes. Detective Gish also recovered a text
message Ms. Pittman sent to the [Petitioner] at 8:57 p.m. the day of the
victim’s murder that read, “I am so happy for you . . . it’s great when a plan
comes together . . . .” His analysis of Ms. Pittman’s computer showed she
had sent emails to an address, bigmansixnine@gmail.com, associated with
the [Petitioner]’s phone. One email dated August 19, 2010, ten days before
the victim’s murder, included attachments containing information on
Barbados and processing times for passport applications. Another email
dated September 17, 2010, included an attachment listing countries that do
not have extradition treaties with the United States.
....
TBI Special Agent James Russell Davis, II testified that he tested
numerous items of evidence for gunshot residue. He found gunshot primer
residue on the blue towel and the Condor tactical sleeve recovered from the
[Petitioner]’s vehicle. The residue particles contained tin and zirconium,
which was unique. He analyzed the shell casing recovered from the crime
scene and found that it “also had the elements tin and zirconium.” Agent
Davis explained that this was the first time he had seen zirconium in gunshot
residue and that the shell casing was an import, apparently manufactured in
Russia.
....
Dr. Laura Boos of the TBI Crime Laboratory Serology DNA Unit
testified that she performed DNA testing on the blue latex gloves, blue hand
towel, lunchbox cooler, and tactical sleeve recovered from the [Petitioner]’s
8
vehicle. The items contained a mixture of genetic material from more than
one person. She obtained a limited DNA profile, which was consistent with
the [Petitioner], from the latex gloves. She was able to exclude the victim,
Mr. Bozza, and Brian Robinson as contributors to the mixture found on the
gloves. She also was able to exclude Mr. Bozza and Mr. Robinson as
contributors to the genetic material on the blue towel but was unable to
exclude the [Petitioner] and the victim as potential contributors. The towel
was sent to another laboratory for further testing. From the limited profile
she obtained from the lunchbox cooler, the [Petitioner] could not be excluded
as a contributor, but the victim, Mr. Bozza, and Mr. Robinson were excluded.
The major profile on the Condor tactical sleeve “completely match [ed]” the
[Petitioner], and she was able to exclude the victim, Mr. Bozza, and Mr.
Robinson as contributors. On cross-examination, Dr. Boos acknowledged
that she did not find the [Petitioner]’s DNA on any of the profiles obtained
from the crime scene or underneath the victim’s fingernails.
Jennifer Smith, a DNA analyst with Orchid Cellmark Laboratories,
testified that she examined the blue towel, using a different technique than
most other laboratories, and found that the “major DNA profile present on
the side of the towel without writing originated from [the Petitioner].” The
victim and Mr. Robinson could not be excluded as minor contributors, and
no conclusion was reached regarding Mr. Bozza.
TBI Agent Steve Scott, assigned to the Firearms Identification
Section, testified that he examined a nine-millimeter cartridge case and four
nine-millimeter bullets recovered from the crime scene. The bullets had a
copper steel mix, which was “a little bit unusual” and consistent with a
Russian-made ammunition. He compared two cartridge cases shell casings
found on the property in Ethridge, Tennessee, to the cartridge case recovered
from the crime scene and determined they had been fired in the same firearm.
Characteristics most common to firearms manufactured by Hi-Point were
present on all three cartridge cases. Agent Scott identified the gun and
magazine depicted in a photograph recovered from the [Petitioner]’s cell
phone as a Hi-Point semiautomatic pistol. The shell casing recovered from
the crime scene had the same green coloration as the top cartridge case in the
magazine.
Id. at *11-12
After hearing this evidence, the jury convicted the Petitioner of first-degree
premeditated murder and especially aggravated murder, and the trial court imposed a life
9
sentence without parole and a consecutive twenty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner
appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court’s judgments. Id. at *1.
The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition, asserting that he had received the
ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court found that the Petitioner’s
attorney had not rendered ineffective assistance, and this court affirmed the post-conviction
court on appeal. Cotham v. State, No. M2017-02031-CCA-R3-PC, 2019 WL 3281195, at
*11 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 22, 2019), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 4, 2019).
The Petitioner then filed a petition requesting post-conviction relief pursuant to the
Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the
petition. It is from this judgment that the Petitioner now appeals.
II. Analysis
The Petitioner contends that he is entitled to relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction
DNA Analysis Act because the post-conviction court should have ordered testing of the
blue towel under newer testing procedures. He acknowledges that the blue towel has
undergone DNA testing twice, but he requests for the first time in his brief a newer testing
standard established in 2017. The State responds that the trial court properly determined
that new DNA testing had no reasonable probability of changing the outcome at trial. We
agree with the State.
The Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act allows for defendants convicted of certain
homicide and sexual offenses to request post-conviction DNA testing at any time. T.C.A.
§ 40-30-303. The post-conviction court, after allowing the prosecution to respond, must
order a DNA analysis if it finds each of the following:
(1) A reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not have been
prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through
DNA analysis;
(2) The evidence is still in existence and in such a condition that DNA
analysis may be conducted;
(3) The evidence was never previously subjected to DNA analysis or was
not subjected to the analysis that is now requested which could resolve an
issue not resolved by previous analysis; and
(4) The application for analysis is made for the purpose of demonstrating
innocence and not to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or
administration of justice.
T.C.A. § 40-30-304.
10
In addition, the court may order DNA analysis if it finds “[a] reasonable probability
exists that analysis of the evidence will produce DNA results that would have rendered the
petitioner’s verdict or sentence more favorable if the results had been available at the
proceeding leading to the judgment of conviction” and the petitioner has satisfied
requirements (2), (3), and (4) listed above. Id. § -305. Under both the mandatory and
discretionary provisions, the petitioner must satisfy all four requirements before the court
will order a DNA analysis. See Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36, 48 (Tenn. 2011). Failure
to meet any of the four criteria is fatal to the action. See Buford v. State, No. M2002-
02180-CCA-R3-PC, 2003 WL 1937110, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 24, 2003), no perm.
app. filed.
On review of the denial of a petition, we afford “considerable discretion” to the post-
conviction court’s decision. Rucker v. State, No. M2018-00987-CCA-R3-PC, 2019 WL
325046, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 23, 2019), no perm. app. filed. We will only reverse
the post-conviction court where its judgment is “not supported by substantial evidence.”
Id.
The post-conviction court, in denying the additional DNA testing, found:
The Court of Criminal appeals has already upheld Petitioner’s
conviction, ruling that there was sufficient evidence to support this
conviction. The evidence the court focused on consisted primarily of cell
phone records and the testimony of a codefendant, with no mention of the
blue hand towel. Petitioner’s claim that the hand towel was the “linchpin in
the State’s case against the Petitioner” is unfounded. No reasonable
probability exists that Petitioner would not have been prosecuted or
convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA analysis.
Here, the Petitioner has failed to establish that a reasonable probability exists that
he would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results were obtained
through DNA analysis. The role of the blue towel in the prosecution was minimal. The
co-defendant’s testimony about his relationship with the Petitioner, the motive for the
killing, the cell phone evidence, and the Petitioner’s access to his girlfriend’s pistol is
significant evidence upon which a jury could find the Petitioner guilty. Given the nature
of the evidence and witness testimony, we cannot conclude that Petitioner would not have
been prosecuted even if exculpatory DNA evidence related to the blue towel was available.
See T.C.A. § 40-30-304(1). The Petitioner does not offer any explanation for how this
evidence would prove his innocence considering the remaining evidence. Accordingly, the
Petitioner is not entitled to relief.
11
III. Conclusion
After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude the post-
conviction court properly denied the Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction DNA
analysis. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
_________S/ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER__
ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, PRESIDING JUDGE
12