Kennebrew v. State
Decision Date | 31 October 2016 |
Docket Number | S16A0844 |
Citation | 299 Ga. 864,792 S.E.2d 695 |
Parties | KENNEBREW v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Kevin Alan Anderson, Tyler Reid Conklin, for Appellant.
Robert D. James, Jr., Dist. Atty., Charles A. Spahos, Gary D. Bergman, Lalaine A. Briones, Asst. Dist. Attys., pro tempore, Samuel S. Olens, Atty. Gen., Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Paula K. Smith, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Matthew B. Crowder, Asst. Atty., Gen., for Appellee.
Appellant Phillip Kennebrew was found guilty of malice murder, armed robbery, and other crimes in connection with the death of Breyon Alexander. In Babbage v. State, 296 Ga. 364, 768 S.E.2d 461 (2015), we affirmed the convictions of Mason Babbage and Samuel Hall, who were tried together with Appellant, rejecting their claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, each defendant had his own attorney at trial, and Appellant—unlike Babbage and Hall—has shown that his trial counsel was professionally deficient in two significant respects and that, but for those errors, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been more favorable to him. Accordingly, we reverse Appellant's convictions, although we find that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the convictions, so the State may retry him if it chooses.1
1. As explained in Babbage, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence at trial showed the following.
Babbage, 296 Ga. at 364–366, 768 S.E.2d 461.
When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was found guilty. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32, 33, 673 S.E.2d 223 (2009) . See also OCGA § 16–2–20 ( ); Charleston v. State, 292 Ga. 678, 680–681, 743 S.E.2d 1 (2013) ( ). We note with respect to the discussion in Division 2 below that in determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we consider all of the evidence that was admitted at Appellant's trial, even though some of the evidence should have been excluded. See Cowart v. State, 294 Ga. 333, 343, 751 S.E.2d 399 (2013). See also McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 131, 130 S.Ct. 665, 175 L.Ed.2d 582 (2010) .
2. Appellant contends that his trial counsel, Maurice Kenner, provided constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. To prevail on this claim, Appellant must show both deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). To show deficient performance, Appellant must prove that his counsel acted or failed to act in an objectively unreasonable way, considering all the circumstances and in the light of prevailing professional norms. See id. at 687–690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To show resulting prejudice, Appellant must demonstrate that there is Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
(a) Appellant identifies two omissions by Kenner that he contends were not the result of reasonable professional judgment. We agree.
(1) Appellant points first to Kenner's failure to seek suppression of the evidence recovered from Appellant's backpacks. Appellant's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and this evidence, along with witness testimony, clearly placed Appellant at the victim's apartment at the time of the crimes. Given this evidence, Kenner, in consultation with Appellant, decided to pursue a mere presence/mere association defense, arguing at trial that Appellant went to the apartment with Babbage and Hall simply to sell the victim a PlayStation, that Hall unexpectedly went crazy and viciously beat and stabbed the victim to death, and that Appellant then fled the apartment.
This defense had its weaknesses—Appellant was associated with Babbage during the morning before the crimes, was present with Babbage and Hall during the murder, and (inferentially) was the third man present with Babbage and Hall and apparent robbery proceeds later in the day at Hall's house. See Charleston, 292 Ga....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kirby v. State
...evidence that was admitted at Appellant’s trial, even though some of the evidence should have been excluded." Kennebrew v. State, 299 Ga. 864, 867-868, 792 S.E.2d 695 (2016).4 OCGA § 24-6-602 is part of Georgia’s new Evidence Code and its pertinent language tracks Federal Rule of Evidence 6......
-
Eller v. State
...§ 24–3–36, applied to trials held before January 1, 2013—the effective date of our new Evidence Code. See also Kennebrew v. State , 299 Ga. 864, n.4, 792 S.E.2d 695 (2016). We have specifically declined thus far to decide whether Mallory applies in trials after January 2013. Kennebrew , 299......
-
Tran v. State
...we conclude that Tran has shown the required prejudice to prevail on his ineffective assistance claim. See Kennebrew v. State , 299 Ga. 864, 873-74 (2) (b), 792 S.E.2d 695 (2016) ; Fisher v. State , 299 Ga. 478, 486 (2) (b), 788 S.E.2d 757 (2016). Tran's convictions must therefore be revers......
-
Caffee v. State
...the search of Caffee’s shirt pocket was authorized under the search-incident-to-arrest exception. See Kennebrew v. State, 299 Ga. 864, 870 (2) (a) (1), 792 S.E.2d 695 (2016) (a search incident to an arrest may include a search of the arrestee’s person and the area within the arrestee’s imme......
-
Legal Ethics
...79 n.11, 799 S.E.2d at 770 n.11.200. In re Ervin, 300 Ga. 658, 658-59, 797 S.E.2d 488, 489 (2017).201. Id. at 658, 797 S.E.2d at 489. 202. 299 Ga. 864, 792 S.E.2d 695 (2016).203. Id. at 874, 792 S.E.2d at 704.204. Id. at 868-69, 792 S.E.2d at 700.205. Id. at 871, 792 S.E.2d at 701-02.206. I......