Johnson v. State

Decision Date17 November 1992
Docket NumberNo. S92A0774,S92A0774
CitationJohnson v. State, 422 S.E.2d 659, 262 Ga. 545 (Ga. 1992)
PartiesJOHNSON v. STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Demetrius Johnson, pro se.

Murray M. Silver, Atlanta, for Johnson.

Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Herman Sloan, Asst. Dist. Atty., Atlanta, for State.

Carl Greenberg, Asst. Dist. Atty., Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta.

Peggy R. Katz, Staff Atty., Atlanta, for other interested party.

CLARKE, Chief Justice.

On November 5, 1989, Fred Tudor and Michael Nichols met with Deborah Brown to buy crack cocaine. Tudor and Nichols accused Brown of selling them fake cocaine. Brown then called for Demetrius Johnson who appeared from behind a building. Johnson began shooting at Tudor and Nichols, hitting Tudor once in the cheek and Nichols three times in the head and neck. Nichols died from these wounds. The police arrested Brown about two weeks later. She told the police that Johnson shot the victims and testified for the State at Johnson's trial. Michelle Heard, a former girlfriend of Johnson, testified that Johnson admitted to her that he shot the victims. 1

Appellant's sole enumeration of error is that trial counsel was ineffective. He bases this claim on several distinct arguments. We reject Appellant's arguments and affirm the conviction.

1. To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Appellant must show that trial counsel's performance was deficient and that it prejudiced him, depriving him of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). There is a strong presumption that trial counsel's performance "falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance" and that any challenged action " 'might be considered sound trial strategy.' " Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158, 164, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)).

The trial court found that trial counsel was not so deficient as to deprive Appellant of a fair trial. The court also found that all of trial counsel's actions were within the range of professional conduct and did not prejudice Appellant. The evidence against appellant included testimony from an eyewitness and an admission by the Appellant from his former girlfriend. Given the nature of the proof, there is no reasonable probability that the conduct complained of by Appellant would have changed the outcome of the trial. We find no error in the trial court's holding.

2. Having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Johnson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

Judgment affirmed.

BELL, P.J., and HUNT, BENHAM and FLETCHER, JJ., concur.

SEARS-COLLINS, J.,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • Stewart v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1994
    ...presumption that trial counsel's performance "falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance...." Johnson v. State, 262 Ga. 545(1), 422 S.E.2d 659 (1992). Appellant alleges that trial counsel was inadequately prepared, did not reasonably investigate the case, did not comm......
  • Huey v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1994
    ...However, Huey has failed to carry his burden of proving the prejudice prong of the ineffectiveness standard. See Johnson v. State, 262 Ga. 545(1), 422 S.E.2d 659 (1992). 8. After oral arguments Huey filed a supplementary enumeration of error and brief contending that the admission of certai......
  • Maxwell v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1992
    ... ... That right may only be waived by the defendant and, even then, to be effective, the waiver must be an intelligent one: it must be "an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1937) ...         Action or inaction by a defendant's counsel cannot result in waiver of the right to the effective assistance of counsel or of the right to assert that issue on appeal; it can result only in a procedural ... ...