On direct appeal, this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied his application for permission to appeal. See State v. Nelson Troglin, No. E2005-02015-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2633107 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2006), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2007). The underlying facts of the case were recited by this court on direct appeal as follows:
Petitioner was subsequently sentenced to twenty-four years in the Tennessee Department of Corrections for the attempted murder of his friend. See State v. Troglin, No. E2005-02015-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2633107 (Tenn.Crim.App. Sept. 14, 2006),perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2007).
While we have yet to address the issue of whether aggravated assault is a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder under Burns, the lower courts have held that it is not. See State v. Troglin, No. E2005-02015-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2633107, at *21-22 (Tenn.Crim.App. Sept. 14, 2006), perm, appeal denied (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2007); State v. Williams, No. W2000-01435-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 721056, at *6 (Tenn.Crim.App. June 27, 2001), perm. appeal denied (Tenn. Oct. 29, 2001); State v. Brown, No. M1999-00691-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 262936, at *2 (Tenn.Crim.App. Mar.9, 2000), perm. appeal denied (Tenn. Sept. 10, 2001). The fact that aggravated assault was not a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder did not render the trial court without jurisdiction to convict the defendant of aggravated assault in this case.
The Defendant's conviction relates to the attempted homicide of Mike Stafford, who was a witness against the Defendant in a homicide case. See State v. Nelson Troglin, No. E2005-02015-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2633107, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2007). After the Defendant's conviction was affirmed, he petitioned for post-conviction relief, which was denied.
Our appellate courts have not required a new trial under similar fact patterns when a defendant has claimed juror bias. State v. Robinson, 146 S.W.3d 469, 522-523 (Tenn. 2004) (finding no "nexus" between defendant and juror who was a deputy jailer and assigned to the defendant's pod for three hours); Willie Calvin Taylor, Jr., 2012 WL 2308088, at *8; State v. Nelson Troglin, No. E2005-02015-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2633107, at *20 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2006) (juror, who negligently responded incorrectly at voir dire, was aware of defendant's conviction for a prior homicide, although jury as a whole was only informed of defendant's indictment for the homicide; a new trial was not granted because "all the jurors knew information similar to what [he] knew about the [d]efendant" and "such exposure did not prejudice the [d]efendant's case"), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2007); State v. Randall S. Sparks, No. M2005-02436-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2242236 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2006) (juror was the defendant and his mother's former landlord, but did not recognize him during voir dire and had only a passing acquaintance with him, although she was involved in a dispute over the deposit with the defendant's mother), no perm. app. filed. Here, we cannot say that one juror's understanding of her prior working relationship with Defendant's mother fatally tainted the jury's verdict.
The constitutional guarantee to assistance of counsel does not include "the right to a meaningful relationship between an accused and his counsel." State v. Nelson Troglin, No. E2005-02015-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2633107, at *27 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2006) (citing State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 546 (Tenn. 2000)). To that end, "trial counsel is not required to withdraw representation merely because a client has filed a complaint against him with the Board [of Professional Responsibility]."
Crim. App. Aug. 26, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 15, 2012) (examining ineffectiveness claim based on conflict of interest where the defendant filed a Board of Professional Responsibility complaint against trial counsel and wrote several letters to the trial court); State v. Nelson Troglin, No. E2005-02015-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2633107, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2007) (reviewing defendant-alleged conflict of interest based on animosity and distrust between him and counsel that caused ineffective assistance); Steve Mason v. State, No. M2002-00414-CCA-R3-PC, 2003 WL 22038785, at *7 (Tenn.
Second, Ms. Ceaser's failure to reveal her knowledge of the defendant during voir dire was inadvertent; her innocent misrepresentation supports a finding that she did not harbor a bias against the defendant. See, e.g., State v. Troglin, No. E2005-02015-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2633107, at *20 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2006). Additionally, the trial court instructed the members of the jury to base their decision on the evidence presented at trial, and juries are presumed to follow their charge.