Brooks v. State
| Decision Date | 25 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | A22A1110 |
| Parties | BROOKS v. THE STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
In 2018, a Cobb County jury found Antonio Brooks guilty of two counts of rape, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of false imprisonment, and one count of burglary, based on incidents that occurred in 1986. He filed a motion for new trial, as amended. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Brooks's motion. In his instant appeal,[1] Brooks argues that the trial court erred by: finding that Brooks knowingly and intelligently waived his right to post-conviction counsel; denying his request for a mandatory transfer hearing as the juvenile court had jurisdiction over the matter; denying Brooks's motion for a plea in bar admitting bad character evidence; and denying Brooks's request for an in-camera review of prison records. Brooks further contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the jury's verdict and the defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence. We do not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, but determine only whether the evidence authorized the jury to find the defendant guilty of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979).
Hall v. State, 335 Ga.App. 895, 895 (783 S.E.2d 400) (2016) (citation and punctuation omitted). So viewed, the record shows that D. S. was visiting from out of state over labor day weekend in 1986 and stayed with her boyfriend at his apartment in Cobb County. On September 1, 1986, after her boyfriend left for work, D. S. took a shower. When she stepped out of the shower and was drying her hair, she was attacked by a man wielding a knife. The man threw D. S. back into the bathroom, threatened to kill her, held the knife to her throat, and raped her by inserting his penis into her vagina, forcibly and against her will. D. S. was unable to get a good look at her assailant because it was dark in the bathroom and he had a hood over his head. After raping her, the man threw D. S. into the bathtub, turned on the cold water, and threatened to kill D. S. and her boyfriend if she reported the incident. After the perpetrator left, D. S. went to a friend's apartment and called the police. The police responded and D. S. was taken to the hospital where a rape kit was performed.
Two days later, on September 3, 1986, M. H. was in her apartment in Cobb County when an unknown young man came to her door and asked her for help in finding someone in the apartment complex for a delivery. When M. H. opened the door, the man forced his way in, beat her, punched her in the face with his fist, and then raped her. The man then forced M. H. to take a shower to try and wash away any evidence, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident. After reporting the attack to the police, M. H. went to the hospital where a rape kit was performed. M. H. died in 2013.
In May 2013, Detective Shannon Arrowood of the Marietta Police Department received a phone call from a concerned citizen about a potential rape that occurred back in 1986. The detective conducted an investigation, which uncovered old police reports about two unsolved rapes from September 1986 in which DNA evidence was collected from the victims, D. S. and M. H. The police requested that the DNA evidence be run through the Combined DNA Index System ("CODIS") database.[2] The search yielded a hit to Brooks, who was serving a 30-year sentence for 1988 convictions for rape and aggravated sodomy. Law enforcement was notified about the match on September 12, 2013, upon completion of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation ("GBI") report.
In January 2016, Brooks was indicted on two counts of rape (Counts 1 and 4), two counts of aggravated assault (Counts 2 and 5), two counts of false imprisonment (Counts 3 and 6), and two counts of burglary (Counts 7 and 8) for the incidents involving D. S. and M. H.[3]
At trial, a GBI forensic biologist testified that the male DNA recovered from both victims' rape kits was identical and matched to Brooks. The jury found Brooks guilty on Counts 1 to 7. The trial court sentenced him to a total term of two consecutive life sentences plus 20 years to be served in confinement with an additional 20 years on probation. Brooks, who had been represented by counsel at trial, filed a counseled motion for new trial, as amended. He also filed a pro se motion for new trial while still represented by counsel.[4] After Brooks executed a detailed waiver of his right to representation, the trial court held a Faretta[5] inquiry during the December 7, 2020 hearing on Brooks's motion for new trial. The court subsequently granted Brooks's request to proceed post trial without counsel.[6] He then filed additional amendments to his now pro se motion for new trial. The trial court denied Brooks's motion, and this appeal followed.
Before we reach the merits of the appeal, we note that Brooks's initial pro se brief fails to comply with this Court's rules because he includes several arguments within the body of his brief that are not listed as numbered and distinct enumerations of error. Court of Appeals Rule 25 (a) (4); Riggins v. State, 128 Ga.App. 478, 478 (2) (197 S.E.2d 154) (1973) (). He also fails to support many of his arguments with citations to the record and legal authority.[7] See Court of Appeals Rule 25 (d) (1) (). Brooks's pro se status at the time he filed his initial brief did not relieve him of his obligation to comply with the rules of this Court. See Wimbush v. State, 345 Ga.App. 54, 59 (812 S.E.2d 489) (2018) ("The rules of this [C]ourt are not intended to provide an obstacle for the unwary or the pro se appellant.") (citation and punctuation omitted). Briefs that do not conform to our rules "hinder this [C]ourt in determining the substance and basis of an appellant's contentions both in fact and in law and may well prejudice an appellant's appeal regardless of the amount of leniency shown." Id. at 59-60 (citation and punctuation omitted). Nevertheless, in our discretion, we will address his claims of error to the extent we are able to understand them in conjunction with his counseled reply brief. Bennett v. Moody, 225 Ga.App. 95, 96 (483 S.E.2d 350) (1997).
1. Although not listed in his enumeration of errors in his initial brief, Brooks alleges that he "was forced under duress to proceed pro se." In his reply brief, Brooks expands on this argument, asserting: he was never specifically advised of the dangers of proceeding pro se during post-conviction proceedings; he had an interest in ensuring that all necessary steps were taken to prepare his defense case; his trial counsel should have been subpoenaed to appear at the motion for new trial hearing; and the trial court failed to take proper consideration of his statements - including wanting to talk to his post-conviction counsel and file a motion for appointment of new counsel - as proof of his desire to proceed with counsel rather than pro se.
As an initial matter, Brooks was represented by four different attorneys before the trial court. John Hildebrand ("first trial counsel") represented Brooks from May 3, 2016 until August 12, 2016. Kevin Rodgers ("trial counsel") represented Brooks from August 12, 2016 through the conclusion of his trial in June 2018. Brian Hobbs was appointed to represent Brooks in post-conviction proceedings on July 17, 2018, and he served in that role until August 2019. Sylvia Goldman ("post-conviction counsel") was then appointed on August 22, 2019, and represented Brooks until the trial court granted his request to proceed pro se on December 9, 2020.
"A criminal defendant in Georgia is constitutionally entitled to the effective assistance of counsel during his trial, motion for new trial proceeding, and direct appeal." Allen v. Dakar, 311 Ga. 485, 497 (2) (858 S.E.2d 731) (2021) (citation and punctuation omitted). "In most cases, before a defendant may properly proceed pro se in initial post-conviction proceedings and on direct appeal, he must be advised of the dangers of such self-representation and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to appellate counsel on the record." Donovan v. State, 362 Ga.App. 408, 409 (2) (a) (868 S.E.2d 808) (2022) (citation and punctuation omitted). See generally Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (V) (95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562) (1975) ( ) (citations and punctuation omitted). "A trial court's ruling as to whether the defendant's waiver of the right to counsel was valid is reviewed for abuse of discretion." Britt v. State, 362 Ga.App. 456, 456 (868 S.E.2d 824) (2022) (citation and punctuation omitted).
On July 22, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial court held a hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial