Daniels v. Thomas

Decision Date13 September 2017
Docket NumberS17A0931, S17A0932.
Citation302 Ga. 90,805 S.E.2d 80
Parties DANIELS v. The STATE. Thomas v. The State.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Gregory Davis Smith, CONGER & SMITH, LCC, 218 E. Water Street, Bainbridge, Georgia 39817, for Appellant in S17A0931.

Jon Wilton McClure, OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, Southern Judicial Circuit, Colquitt County Courthouse, Suite 105, 9 South Main St., Moultrie, Georgia 31768, for Appellant in S17A0932.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, April Marie Hancock, A.D.A., COLQUITT COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, P.O. Box 2498, Moultrie, Georgia 31776–2498, Bradfield M. Shealy, District Attorney, SOUTHERN JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, P.O. Box 99, Valdosta, Georgia 31603–0099, for Appellee in S17A0931 and S17A0932.

Meghan Hobbs Hill, Assistant Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334–1300, for Appellee in S17A0931.

Matthew Blackwell Crowder, Assistant Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334–1300, for Appellee in S17A0932.

Lynn G. Purvis, Clerk of Colquitt County Courts, P.O. Box 2827, Moultrie, Georgia 31776, for Other Party in S17A0931 and S17A0932.

Hines, Chief Justice.

In case number S17A0931, Demetrius Tyshaun Daniels appeals his convictions and sentences for felony murder, violations of the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, in connection with the death of Alvin Hunt; in companion case number S17A0932, Tobias Demere Thomas appeals his convictions and sentences for the felony murder of Bernardino Perez, violations of the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, in connection with multiple criminal incidents. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in both cases.1

Construed to support the verdicts, the evidence showed that Daniels and Thomas were members of a local street gang known as the "Forrest Hill Boyz," and were tried together, with four other defendants, for their roles in various crimes that took place in and around Moultrie. Of the incidents that resulted in convictions germane to these appeals, the first occurred in the Sardis Church Road area in Moultrie. On the night of April 25, 2009, eyewitnesses heard gunshots and saw an SUV drive away from a mobile home park located on Sardis Church Road. Law enforcement officers arrived and found Perez fatally shot in the chest; he had been paid that day, but no money was found on his person. Alphonso Knighton, who was a co–indictee of Daniels and Thomas, testified that he, Thomas, and Jeudy, each armed with a handgun, drove to the Sardis Church Road neighborhood. When they saw Perez, Jeudy jumped out of the vehicle to rob him. Knighton testified that he heard gunshots, Jeudy got back in the vehicle, told them not to say anything, and they left. An hour before Perez was killed, Crystal Slaughter was outside her cousin's home and Thomas called her to come over to Jeudy's SUV. Thomas handed her a cell phone, and she spoke with Danny Hill; the phone call was recorded as Hill was then incarcerated, and had called Thomas from jail. While Thomas spoke with Hill, Thomas said he had "three heaters,"2 was "loaded to the T," and was looking for "something to do now."

Another set of crimes occurred later that same night, when Knighton, Jeudy, and Thomas went to a mobile home on Circle Road. Knighton held a gun on two or three people outside the home, while Jeudy and Thomas went inside it; Knighton, Jeudy, and Thomas had their faces covered, and all three were armed with pistols. Inside, either Jeudy or Thomas grabbed the hair of Margarita Ortiz-Vasquez, who resided in the home, and hit her with a pistol. The assailants demanded money, and Ortiz-Vasquez's husband, Samuel Cruz, told her to give the men her backpack, in which the couple kept money; it contained $1,500, a gold chain, checks, social security cards, and the title to a vehicle; one of the assailants also took money from the pockets of Angel Gaspar. One of the assailants shot Jorge Luis Cruz and Javier Santiago, who also resided in the home; both of these shooting victims survived. Knighton heard two gunshots, and Jeudy and Thomas ran from the home with what Knighton described as a "pocketbook"; one of the victims saw the three men flee in a vehicle that matched the description of Jeudy's; Jeudy gave Knighton $200 of the robbery proceeds. Thomas told his cousin, Michael Enoch, that he and Jeudy had been involved in robbing, hurting, and killing "some Hispanics," and had obtained about $900 by committing those crimes.

On July 2, 2010 another set of crimes occurred in and around the Shy Manor Apartments in Moultrie. Deon Moore ("Deon") was driving his car with its windows down and his brother Basil Moore ("Basil") and Alvin Hunt as passengers. As they drove past a group of people outside the apartments, someone sprayed liquid from a water gun into the car. Deon stopped and the three men got out, prepared to fight people in the crowd. Threats to call police were made, and the three men got back into the car and left. Later, Daniels got into a vehicle with co-defendant Robert Fuller and co-indictee Dontavious Jackson. After a phone call, they met Thomas, who distributed handguns to Daniels, Fuller, and Jackson.3 They then went to the Shy Manor Apartments looking for Hunt, Basil, and Deon, and found them. Daniels, Fuller, and Jackson started firing at Hunt, Basil and Deon, who were seated on a porch at the complex. Hunt was hit while trying to run away; he was taken to a hospital, where he died of his injuries. Daniels was identified as one of the shooters, but it was unknown who fired the fatal gunshot.

Daniels did not testify at trial. Thomas testified that, as to the Sardis Church Road crimes, he left the company of Jeudy and Knighton before they went to Sardis Church Road, did not see them again that night, and had no involvement in the crimes that occurred on Sardis Church Road or Circle Road. Thomas also testified that he had received a telephone call from Hill, and that during that call, he said that he was "riding around with two heaters. Two or three heaters, something like that." However, Thomas maintained that this was because, during the phone call, Hill had asked that Thomas "flex" during the call, which meant to exaggerate his statements in a "tough" manner; Thomas testified that his reference to "heaters" was in that vein, and was inspired by rap song lyrics of an artist named T.I., and that "T.I." was also a nickname that had been given to Thomas.

Case No. S17A0931

1. Daniels does not contest the legal sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. Nevertheless, in accordance with this Court's general practice in appeals of murder cases, this Court has reviewed the record and concludes that the evidence presented at trial authorized the jury to find Daniels guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2. Daniels contends that his trial counsel failed to provide effective assistance in several respects. In order to prevail on any such claim, he must show both that counsel's performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance was prejudicial to his defense. Smith v. Francis, 253 Ga. 782, 783 (1), 325 S.E.2d 362 (1985), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). To meet the first prong of the required test, he must overcome the "strong presumption" that counsel's performance fell within a "wide range of reasonable professional conduct," and that counsel's decisions were "made in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment." Id. The reasonableness of counsel's conduct is examined from counsel's perspective at the time of trial and under the particular circumstances of the case, id. at 784, 325 S.E.2d 362, and decisions regarding trial tactics and strategy may form the basis for an ineffectiveness claim only if they were so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have followed such a course. Redding v. State, 297 Ga. 845, 850 (5), 778 S.E.2d 774 (2015). To meet the second prong of the test, Daniels must show that there is a reasonable probability that, absent any unprofessional errors on counsel's part, the result of his trial would have been different. Smith, supra at 783, 325 S.E.2d 362. " 'We accept the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.' [Cit.]" Robinson v. State, 277 Ga. 75, 76, 586 S.E.2d 313 (2003).

Daniels contends that trial counsel should have moved to sever his prosecution from that of the other defendants. During the hearing on Daniels's motion for new trial, trial counsel testified that he believed it was a better course of action to ensure that Daniels would not be tried separately; counsel noted that Daniels had been offered—and had rejected—a favorable plea deal, and that counsel had reason to believe that if Daniels were tried alone, a co-defendant would accept a deal similar to the one offered to Daniels, and would testify against Daniels, and that this decision was made in consultation with Daniels. Counsel further testified that he believed that the better course of action was to "hide in the weeds" and, as the multi-defendant trial concerned five incidents, and as Daniels was accused of being involved in only one of them, to try to avoid Daniels being mentioned often during trial, and hope that he could remain in obscurity.4 Counsel's chosen strategy was not patently unreasonable, see Thomas v. State, 300 Ga. 433, 438 (2) (a) (1), 796...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Lane
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • February 10, 2020
    ...the list set forth below may not be exhaustive. Grant v. State , 305 Ga. 170, 179 (5) (h), 824 S.E.2d 255 (2019) ; Daniels v. State , 302 Ga. 90, 105 (8), 805 S.E.2d 80 (2017) ; Rivers v. State , 296 Ga. 396, 405 (12), 768 S.E.2d 486 (2015) ; Woodall v. State , 294 Ga. 624, 634 (11), 754 S.......
  • Blackwell v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • January 29, 2018
    ...claim only if they were so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have followed such a course." Daniels v. State , 302 Ga. 90, 94 (2), 805 S.E.2d 80 (2017) (citations omitted)."An attorney's decision about which defense to present is a question of trial strategy." Hendrix v.......
  • King v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 19, 2018
    ..., 342 Ga. App. 530, 540-41 (6), 804 S.E.2d 156 (2017).24 Watson , 297 Ga. at 721 (2), 777 S.E.2d 677.25 Id.26 See Daniels v. State , 302 Ga. 90, 105 (7), 805 S.E.2d 80 (2017) (noting that "jury instructions are read and considered as a whole in determining whether there is error" (punctuati......
  • Rhoden v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • April 16, 2018
    ...show that counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance was prejudicial to his defense." Daniels v. State , 302 Ga. 90, 93 (2), 805 S.E.2d 80 (2017). "While the test imposed by Strickland is not impossible to meet, the burden is a heavy one." Faust v. State , 302 G......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT