This matter began in the trial court before Judge Vicky Snyder (now retired) and later Judge Michael King. During that time, I filed a motion under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 challenging the legality of the sentence. In my experience, the trial court did not issue a ruling on that motion, which led me to seek further review. Judge Bruce Griffey subsequently found that I had a colorable claim and opened the case for review, including both a de novo appeal and post-conviction proceedings. After reassignment, Judge Brent Bradberry reached the opposite conclusion and determined that I did not have a colorable claim. He dismissed both the de novo appeal and the post-conviction case without holding a hearing and without explaining why he disagreed with the prior finding. From my perspective, the primary concerns were: * A claim previously found to be legally sufficient was dismissed without explanation * The court did not address the underlying substantive issues raised * Both matters were resolved without a hearing When I raised concerns that procedural grounds were being used instead of addressing the core legal issues, Judge Bradberry responded, “you can think that, Mr. Poole,” without further explanation. Additionally, when I again raised the issue under Rule 36.1, I was instructed to file it in the trial court, even though it had already been filed there and remained unresolved. The only change reflected in the record was a correction of the case number from 24-CR-58 to 23-CR-58, which did not address the underlying legal issues. Based on my experience, it appeared that procedural issues were prioritized over substantive legal questions, making it difficult to obtain a meaningful review of the claims. This matter is currently pending before the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Legal Knowledge: he either is intentionally violating law or he truly is the dumbest judge I’ve ever seen. Fairness & Impartiality: He works for the state and is paid by the state and gives the state massive deference. Judicial Temperament: he will make it known that he does not care about what your legal issue is, And he will openly admit that he will use procedure, even if the substansive matter outweighs it. even if the procedure he’s trying to use does not apply. Communication: he will put motions on the docket that were not on the docket and expect you to argue them in real time while the state already knew what they were going to say it and had already researched it Timeliness: everything moves really slow