THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Four men from Miami drove to Louisville with a plan to set up chiropractic clinics. But Oskel Lezcano (who all agree was the mastermind) had another, more lucrative idea: file false claims with the patients’ insurers and get paid for treatments that never happened. The other men involved—Ledinson Chavez, Sergio Betancourt, and Yuriesky Diaz—joined in.

Eventually, the government discovered the scheme and brought criminal charges against the four men. Chavez went to trial. He claimed that he was innocent and had no idea that Lezcano was cooking the books. But to no avail. The jury found Chavez guilty of healthcare fraud, conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to commit money laundering for purposes of concealment.

Chavez now appeals those convictions and his 74-month sentence. He alleges a host of trial errors, which fall into three groups: (1) two challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and a related challenge to the prosecutor’s closing argument, (2) two hearsay arguments, and (3) three objections to the jury instructions. He also raises one sentencing argument. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Darin Woods, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for attempted second degree murder, aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he is serving an effective twenty-seven-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in denying his petition without holding a meaningful hearing. We reverse the judgment of the postconviction court.

The Petitioner, Vernon Walton, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his December 5, 2016 guilty plea conviction of attempted first degree murder, for which he is serving a sixteen-year sentence. He contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief based upon his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and entry of an involuntary guilty plea. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Cleotris Ruben, entered best interest pleas in two separate cases to one count of Class E felony theft of property and one count of Class A misdemeanor theft of property. Prior to a sentencing hearing, the Defendant filed motions to withdraw his guilty pleas, which the trial court denied. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of one year in the workhouse and six years of supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions to withdraw his pleas because he provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that a “fair and just reason” justifies the withdrawal of his guilty pleas. After a review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for appointment of new counsel and a new hearing on the Defendant’s motions to withdraw his pleas.

The Defendant, Terrell Lamont Reid, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell and to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and received an effective seventeen-year sentence. He filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 alleging that his sentence was illegal because his firearm offense sentence was enhanced under the criminal gang enhancement statute. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion after determining that the sentence was not illegal. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by denying relief because the enhanced sentence for his firearm conviction was unconstitutional and illegal. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

On March 24, 2015, a Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant-Appellant, Reginald Parnell, for two counts of aggravated assault. On May 21, 2018, the day he was set for trial, the Defendant accepted a plea agreement and entered an Alford plea to each count of aggravated assault in exchange for a concurrent term of three years’ probation.1 On June 15, 2018, represented by newly retained counsel, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was denied by the trial court following a hearing. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Upon our review, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Gerald McEwen, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree premeditated murder and attempted first degree murder, for which he received an effective sentence of life without parole. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately cross-examine an eyewitness and in failing to formally move for a mistrial following alleged improper conduct by the prosecutrix.1 Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Anthony Dowlen, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief, arguing the petition stated a colorable claim for relief and the postconviction court erred in dismissing the petition without the appointment of counsel. Following our review, we find the trial court erred in dismissing the petition as it stated a colorable claim thus warranting the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, we reverse the order of summary dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.

In 2014, the Petitioner, Antwion Dowdy, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and four counts of aggravated assault, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Petitioner appealed his convictions to this court, and we affirmed the judgments. State v. Antwion Dowdy, No. W2015-02342-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 7654950 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Feb. 21, 2016), no perm. app. filed. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the postconviction court denied after a hearing. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant-Appellant, Demetrius Blakemore, appeals the order of the Madison County Circuit Court revoking his probation in four cases. On appeal, Blakemore argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation because his probationary period had expired. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.