JABRIEL LINZY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE - Articles

All Content

JABRIEL LINZY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Posted by: Julia Wilburn on Jan 28, 2026

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Garrett D. Ward, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and TaKisha M. Fitzgerald, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellant, State of Tennessee.

Attorneys 2: Chloe A. Akers, Knoxville, Tennessee (on appeal and at post-conviction hearing), and Julia Trant (at post-conviction hearing), Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jabriel Linzy.

Judge(s): WEDEMEYER

In 2015, a Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jabriel Linzy, of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for the first degree murder conviction, fifteen years for the attempted first degree murder conviction, and six years for the conviction of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court ordered that the two shorter sentences be served consecutively to each other but concurrently with the life sentence. The Petitioner appealed his convictions, and this court affirmed. State v. Linzy, No. E2016-01052-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 3575871, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 18, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2017). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court granted post-conviction relief, concluding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to inadmissible social media evidence in conjunction with not eliciting testimony about the Petitioner’s prior conflict with the victim and that trial counsel’s performance prejudiced the Petitioner. On appeal, the State contends that the post-conviction court erred because trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision when failing to object to the social media evidence and because the Petitioner cannot show that trial counsel’s performance prejudiced him. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Attachments: