PHILLIP M. MULLINS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE - Articles

All Content

PHILLIP M. MULLINS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Posted by: Azya Thornton on May 7, 2025

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Craig P. Fickling, Cookeville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Phillip Mullins.

Attorneys 2: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Johnny Cerisano, Assistant Attorney General; Bryant Dunaway, District Attorney General; and Beth Willis, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): EASTER

Nearly twenty-three and a half years ago, Phillip Mullins, Petitioner, was convicted of felony murder, second degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and especially aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to life without parole. State v. Mullins, No. M2002-02977-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 23021402, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 29, 2003), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 1, 2004). The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Subsequent petitions for post-conviction relief and habeas corpus relief were unsuccessful. See Mullins v. Lindamood, No. M2017-00139-CCA-R3-HC, 2017 WL 3332269, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 17, 2017); Mullins v. State, No. M2008-00332-CCA-R3-PC, 2008 WL 5272573, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 19, 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 27, 2009). Petitioner then filed a pro se petition for DNA post-conviction relief, a petition for writ of error coram nobis, and a petition for habeas corpus relief. Following several hearings, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appealed. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the post-conviction court erred by denying his request for DNA analysis of the evidence; (2) the post-conviction court improperly denied his request for expert funding; (3) the post-conviction court improperly determined his petition for error coram nobis relief was untimely; and (4) the post- conviction court improperly determined his habeas claims were without merit or previously litigated. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Attachments: