Copeland v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Copeland’s convictions and sentences, rejecting his challenges to trial-court jurisdiction, evidentiary sufficiency, and the denial of his motion to suppress cell-phone records. It held that Copeland’s pro se pretrial notice of appeal was ineffective because he was represented by counsel, that the evidence was constitutionally and statutorily sufficient, and that the warrant affidavit established probable cause. All Justices concurred.