Ellis v. The State, S10A0157.
| Decision Date | 17 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. S10A0157.,S10A0157. |
| Citation | 695 S.E.2d 35,287 Ga. 170 |
| Parties | ELLISv.The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
287 Ga. 170
695 S.E.2d 35
ELLIS
v.
The STATE.
No. S10A0157.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
May 17, 2010.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., Dist. Atty., Bettieanne C. Hart, John O. Williams, Asst. Dist.
CARLEY, Presiding Justice.
A jury found Corey Ellis guilty of two counts of malice murder, four counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of armed robbery and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced Ellis to consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the malice murders and five years for the weapons charge. The felony murder verdicts were vacated by operation of law and the trial court merged the remaining counts into the malice murder counts. Ellis appeals after the denial of a motion for new trial.*
1. Construed most strongly in support of the verdicts, the evidence shows that Ellis arranged to sell illegal drugs to Lamar Francis and Ernest Wilson. The men met at an abandoned lumberyard, where Ellis, using a handgun, took money from Francis and Wilson, and shot and killed them. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Ellis guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Ellis claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to inadmissible evidence concerning other bad acts. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), Ellis “ ‘must prove both that his trial counsel's performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability that the trial result would have been different if not for the deficient performance. (Cit.)’ [Cit.]” Hill v. State, 284 Ga. 521, 522(2), 668 S.E.2d 673 (2008). “ ‘On appeal, this Court accepts the trial court's findings of fact, unless they are clearly erroneous. However, the trial court's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. (Cit.)’ [Cit.]” King v. State, 282 Ga. 505, 506(2), 651 S.E.2d 711 (2007).
Contrary to Ellis' claim, the record shows that trial counsel did in fact object to the admission of evidence of other acts. After Ellis testified, the trial court heard, outside the jury's presence, argument from both parties as to whether Ellis' character had been placed in issue. The State claimed that Ellis' testimony had put his character in evidence and opened the door to rebuttal evidence of other bad acts. Trial counsel for Ellis disputed that claim, arguing that Ellis' testimony was a mere slip of the tongue that did not put his character in evidence, and citing Jones v. State, 257 Ga. 753, 758(1), 363 S.E.2d 529 (1988)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. State, S12A1923.
...need not then further object or ‘except’ to the trial court's ruling in order to preserve the issue for appeal.” Ellis v. State, 287 Ga. 170, 172(2), 695 S.E.2d 35 (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63, 69(4), 694 S.E.2d 316 (2010); Cowan v. Stat......
-
Mitchell v. State
...the trial court on that objection—Mitchell "cannot establish that his trial counsel was deficient" as to this claim. Ellis v. State , 287 Ga. 170, 172, 695 S.E.2d 35 (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Franklin v. State , 306 Ga. 872, 876 n.10, 834 S.E.2d 53 (2019) (ineffect......
-
Marshall v. State
...informed that Marshall had acted in a similar manner in a prior incident contributed to the jury's verdict. See Ellis v. State, 287 Ga. 170, 173(2), 695 S.E.2d 35 (2010) ; Moore v. State, 242 Ga.App. 249, 251(1) (a), 529 S.E.2d 381 (2000). c) Marshall contends that trial counsel was inatten......
-
Hood v. Todd
... ... either the broad province of the General Assembly in expressing the public policy of this State or the narrow role of the factfinder in this case. Unfortunately, the opinion of the majority ... ...