Entwisle v. State, A16A1782
| Decision Date | 01 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | A16A1782 |
| Citation | 340 Ga.App. 122,796 S.E.2d 743 |
| Parties | ENTWISLE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
340 Ga.App. 122
796 S.E.2d 743
ENTWISLE
v.
The STATE.
A16A1782
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
February 1, 2017
Konrad Gerhard Waldemar Ziegler, Lee & Ziegler, Canton, for Appellant.
Leigh Ellen Patterson, Dist. Atty., Rome, Natalee Lyn Staats, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Appellee.
Doyle, Chief Judge.
Following a jury trial, Joe Don Entwisle was convicted of first degree burglary,1 second degree burglary,2 criminal trespass,3 two
counts of theft by taking,4 theft by receiving,5 computer invasion of privacy,6 and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.7 Entwisle appeals the denial of his subsequent motion for new trial, arguing that trial counsel was ineffective; that the trial court erred by admitting his prior convictions without holding a hearing as required by OCGA § 24–4–403 ; and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for first degree burglary. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the denial of Entwisle's motion for new trial as to computer invasion of privacy, and we affirm his remaining convictions.
On appeal, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to support the verdict; indeed, the evidence is construed in favor of the verdict. [Entwisle] no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence. Moreover, an appellate court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility.8
So viewed, the record shows that in early 2013, Entwisle approached the back door to Villa Hizer's home, wearing a back pack, and told her that he lived on a nearby street and was looking for his missing dog. Hizer had never seen Entwisle during the 35 years she had lived in her home, nor had she seen a dog matching the description given by Entwisle. A few weeks later, on April 23, 2013, Hizer returned home after being out of town, entered through the carport door, which appeared to be unlocked, and noticed that certain doors were ajar and dresser drawers were on the floor. The following items were missing from Hizer's home: watches, jewelry, baseball cards, a laptop computer, a gun, sterling silver lighters, and a piece of paper listing security codes. Hizer and police also discovered that a lock on one of her dining room windows had been broken, and there were pry marks on the outside of the window frame.
Also on April 23, 2013, police arrived at a location in response to a "fight call." When they arrived, officers learned that one of the suspects had fled the scene in a green Ford heading toward Payne Road. Shortly thereafter, an officer spotted the Ford parked near what appeared to be an abandoned house on Payne Road. The officer
saw that the back door to the house was ajar, leading him to believe that the fleeing suspect had entered the home.
The officer attempted to enter the home, but the door was blocked by a stove; he then saw Jennifer Rowland, later identified as Entwisle's girlfriend, inside the house. While the officer spoke with Rowland, he heard another person running inside the house. The officer went around to the front door and knocked, and Rowland opened the door and squeezed through, making sure the officer could not see inside. While speaking with Rowland, the officer heard another person moving around inside the house, and Rowland eventually admitted her boyfriend, Entwisle, was inside. Rowland agreed to go inside; the officer, concerned for his safety, prevented her from closing the door and followed her into the house, where he found Entwisle hiding in a bedroom. While he was in the house, the officer observed two new bicycles in the kitchen, several suitcases, and many cardboard boxes. He applied for a warrant
to search the house, but the warrant was denied.
Thereafter, Hizer purchased a new computer and attempted to restore her computer files using Carbonite, an online backup system she had installed on the laptop that was stolen from her home. While doing so, Hizer learned that someone had used the laptop the day after it was stolen and opened her Quicken files, which contained private financial data, including her credit card and bank account information.
An investigator obtained from Carbonite the IP addresses that were used to access Hizer's computer, including one from the Kings Inn motel. The investigator then learned that Rowland had rented a room at that motel, and Entwisle had stayed there with her. The investigator also discovered that someone using Hizer's computer after it was stolen had accessed an email account containing Entwisle's name.
After learning that Entwisle had been the subject of the investigation at the Payne Road house on the same day that Hizer's home had been burglarized, the investigator obtained a search warrant for the Payne Road house, which warrant he executed on May 6, 2013. During the search, police recovered numerous stolen items, some of which belonged to Hizer and her husband, including jewelry, a watch, a piece of paper containing various security alarm codes, a pair of eyeglasses, and Hizer's husband's driver's license.9 Police also found
a crowbar, which the investigator later compared to and found consistent with the markings on Hizer's window frame.
On March 9, 2013, at approximately 10:00 a.m., James McCrary and his wife returned to their home on Burnett Ferry Road in Floyd County after breakfast and discovered that the glass on the door leading from their patio to the garage was broken and scattered on the floor inside the garage.10 Later that afternoon, police arrived at Holland Drive in response to a 911 call reporting "suspicious activity." Police found various items, including tools, strewn on the side of the roadway near the woods. An officer followed a trail through the woods, along which he found additional items on the ground, including a hand truck, until he reached the back of McCrary's property on nearby Burnett Ferry Road. There, the officer saw a free-standing workshop behind McCrary's property, and McCrary confirmed that the items found in the woods belonged to him and were taken from his workshop.
Entwisle's girlfriend, Rowland, testified later at trial that at his request, she dropped Entwisle off on Holland Drive on March 9, 2013. Pursuant to his request, Rowland returned to the same spot approximately 15 minutes later, but she could not find Entwisle. While she was driving and looking for him, he called and advised her that he had seen police in the area; Rowland left the area after she received the call, saw the police cars, and "had a bad feeling." Later that night, Rowland was at a friend's house less than a mile from where she dropped Entwisle off on Holland Road when Entwisle arrived on a bike. Entwisle, who had multiple scratches, was angry with Rowland because she would not help him retrieve from the woods items that he said he got from a nearby home; Entwisle told her that he had to cover himself and the items with leaves when the police arrived in the area.
Following a jury trial, Entwisle was convicted of first degree burglary, second degree burglary, criminal trespass, two counts of theft by taking, theft by receiving, computer invasion of privacy, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.11 The trial court denied Entwisle's motion for new trial, and this appeal followed.
1. Entwisle contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no basis for reversal.
[T]o prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, [Entwisle] must show both that counsel's performance
was deficient, and that the deficient performance was prejudicial to his defense. 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. 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. To meet the second prong of the test, he 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. We accept the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts".12
(a) Trial counsel filed and argued a motion to suppress the evidence found at the Payne Road house. Entwisle argues, however, that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in doing so by "fail[ing] to argue any applicable law and surrender[ing] the issue so quickly as if no motion was filed at all." Specifically, Entwisle contends that trial counsel should have argued that Entwisle had a protected Fourth Amendment interest in the Payne Road house...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bully v. State
...constitutes deficient performance. A trial strategy must be objectively reasonable, and this was not. See Entwisle v. State , 340 Ga. App. 122, 129 (1), 796 S.E.2d 743 (2017). No competent counsel would fail to object to evidence of his client's bad character when a rule of evidence directl......
-
Allen v. State
...job to cull the record on behalf of the appellant to find alleged errors." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Entwisle v. State , 340 Ga. App. 122, 131 (2), 796 S.E.2d 743 (2017). Accordingly, Allen has failed to carry his burden of showing an abuse of discretion by the trial court in admi......
-
Hawkins v. State
...such that any prejudice of the evidence they presented did not substantially outweigh their probative value. See Entwisle v. State , 340 Ga. App. 122, 131 (2), 796 S.E.2d 743 (2017) ("[I]t is only unfair prejudice, substantially outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of releva......
-
Webb v. State
...828 S.E.2d 427 (2019) ; accord Wilkerson v. State , 356 Ga. App. 831, 833 (1), 849 S.E.2d 677 (2020) ; see Entwisle v. State , 340 Ga. App. 122, 131 (2), 796 S.E.2d 743 (2017) ("Our review of the record shows that although the trial court did not make specific findings regarding whether the......