Petitioner, Lindsay Lowe, was convicted by a Sumner County jury of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of aggravated child abuse for killing her newborn twin sons shortly after their birth at her parents’ home and concealing their bodies in a laundry basket. State v. Lowe, 552 S.W.3d 842, 846-48 (Tenn. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1204 (2019). Her convictions and resulting life sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed. Id. Petitioner unsuccessfully sought rehearing. Petitioner then sought a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied. Id. Petitioner ultimately filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief in which she made innumerable allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel as well as several constitutional violations that she argued necessitated reversal of her convictions. Petitioner also requested due process tolling of the post-conviction statute of limitations based on erroneous legal advice about when the statute of limitations commenced. The post-conviction court determined due process tolling was warranted and permitted Petitioner to have a lengthy hearing on the merits of the post-conviction petition. After the hearing, the post-conviction court granted post-conviction relief on the basis that a juror was presumptively biased against Petitioner, violating her right to a fair trial, and that trial counsel’s failure to remove the juror violated Petitioner’s right to effective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court did not address the merits of any of the remaining claims in the petition. In this timely State appeal, we determine first that the postconviction court improperly granted due process tolling of the statute of limitations for post-conviction relief. Additionally, because the post-conviction court went on to grant post-conviction relief, we review those findings of fact and conclusions of law and determine that the post-conviction court also erred in finding that the juror was presumptively biased and that trial counsel was ineffective. As a result, we reverse and remand the judgment of the post-conviction court. All of Petitioner’s convictions are reinstated and her petition for post-conviction relief is dismissed.