A man convicted of stabbing his in-laws to death had his motion for a new trial rejected Wednesday in Circuit Court.

Bryan James Cooke went before Judge Bart Stanley to request a new trial for the deaths of Gary and Gail Dodson. They were murdered in June 2015 and Cooke was found guilty following a jury trial in 2017 of two first-degree murder counts.

Kelly and Amber Dodson, the daughters of Gary and Gail, as well as other family members, cried in the back row of the courtroom as they listened to the request for Cooke to receive a new trial.

Defense attorney Bud Sharp had two arguments regarding the request for a new trial, the first being evidence wasn’t sufficient enough to sustain the convictions.

Cooke claims he had been injected with antipsychotic drugs in Panama City the day before the incident occurred, and then came home and took the cold medicine Mucinex DM, which he was addicted to. The defense used this as an argument to claim Cooke had lost his ability to form intent. Therefore, Sharp said, the murder was second-degree, not first.

The second objection was whether the consecutive sentences were the correct punishment.

One charge of first-degree murder is a 51-year sentence without parole. Since the two charges were run consecutively, that amounts to 102 years.

The defense argued Cooke should have had both sentences run concurrently, or at the same time, since the victims were killed minutes apart instead of two separate charges of first-degree murder. Cooke would only face 51 years if the sentences ran concurrently.

Assistant District Attorney Randall Gilliam spoke about the overwhelming amount of evidence against Cooke, such as Cooke hiding his vehicle behind an outbuilding on the Dodson property, the time of night this killing took place as the victims slept, Cooke’s clothing left behind with the murder weapon, his DNA at the scene, and Cooke’s own testimony at the trial causing the jury to have ample reason without a doubt to find him guilty of two murders in the first degree. 

“The only question was why. We’ll never know the why,” said Gilliam. “We know some money was taken. The why really doesn’t matter. Two beautiful souls were lost. Two lives with value. A concurrent sentence would certainly not have been appropriate when we had two precious individuals who were lost.” 

Sharp argued Cooke never denied killing the Dodsons, but has stated the crime was not pre-meditated.

Judge Stanley ruled the evidence against Cooke was overwhelming and the original conviction of two consecutive first-degree murder counts was justified. 

Sharp asked to be dismissed from representing Cooke after the hearing and was granted his dismissal. 

“I was appointed to represent Mr. Cooke in this matter,” said Sharp. “Mr. Cooke, of course, is probably going to accuse me of not doing a good job for him at some point down the road, so therefore I respectfully request to be dismissed from this case now so Mr. Cooke can be represented by someone else.”