King v. State, S07A1354.
Decision Date | 09 October 2007 |
Docket Number | No. S07A1354.,S07A1354. |
Citation | 282 Ga. 505,651 S.E.2d 711 |
Parties | KING v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
L. Clark Landrum, Sylvester, for Appellant.
Erika S. Johnson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Sylvester, Paul Bowden, Dist. Atty., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., for Appellee.
Gabriel Jenkins died at the age of 13 months. The autopsy showed that he suffered blunt force trauma to his abdomen, resulting in hemorrhage and, peritonitis. The child's body also displayed bruises on his face, chest, back, buttocks and thigh. The grand jury indicted Willie King, who was the live-in boyfriend of the victim's mother, on charges of murder and lesser included offenses. The jury acquitted King of malice murder, but found him guilty on two alternative counts of felony murder, with cruelty to a child and aggravated assault being the predicate felonies, and also guilty of counts charging cruelty to a child and aggravated assault separately. The trial court found that all other counts merged into the count charging felony murder during the commission of cruelty to a child, and entered judgment of conviction on the guilty verdict as to that offense and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. King's motion for new trial was denied, and he now brings this appeal.*
1. An independent review of the record shows that, at trial, the State introduced inculpatory statements that King made to the investigating officers. King did not testify in his own defense, but his attorney attempted to show that the victim's mother was responsible for beating the child. King's inculpatory statements were challenged as untruths that he told to protect his girlfriend. Construing the evidence most strongly in support of the guilty verdict, however, the jury was authorized to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that King violated OCGA § 16-5-70(b)(3) by hitting the child, thereby maliciously causing him to suffer cruel and excessive physical pain and, eventually, death. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Sauerwein v. State, 280 Ga. 438(1), 629 S.E.2d 235 (2006).
2. King contends that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel, because his trial attorney did not provide him with effective legal representation.
To prevail on that claim requires proof that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In order to meet this burden, King must overcome the strong presumption that the performance of his defense counsel falls within the broad range of reasonable conduct. Cit. Here, that presumption was reinforced by the testimony of King's trial attorney herself, who appeared at the hearing on the motion for new trial where she explained her challenged actions and inactions. Having heard all of the evidence, including counsel's testimony, the trial court found no merit in the ineffectiveness claim. 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.
Wiggins v. State, 280 Ga. 627, 628-629(2), 632 S.E.2d 80 (2006).
Accordingly, the record clearly shows that King's lawyer made the tactical decision to defend her client on the basis that he was innocent of any offense involving the death of the child, rather than by conceding that he was guilty of some lesser degree of homicide than murder. It is immaterial that another attorney may have made a different strategic decision and, relying on King's inculpatory statements instead of his claim of innocence, maintained that he was guilty only of involuntary manslaughter. See generally Arnett v. State, 245 Ga. 470, 472(3), 265 S.E.2d 771 (1980). Strickland v. Washington, supra at 689(III)(A), 104 S.Ct. 2052. Leonard v. State, 279 Ga.App. 192, 194-195(2)(b), 630 S.E.2d 804 (2006). Based upon her interviews with King, it was entirely reasonable for the trial attorney to base the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reid v. State
...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). (a) Reid first alleges that his attorney was ineffective in failing to call witnesses. At the motion for new trial hearin......
-
Wilson v. State
...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). At the motion for new trial hearing, trial counsel testified that he decided not to seek a change of venue because he had......
-
State v. Mobley
...Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32(1), 718 S.E.2d 232 (2011) ; Hill v. State, 284 Ga. 521, 524(2)(b), 668 S.E.2d 673 (2008) ; King v. State, 282 Ga. 505, 507(2)(a), 651 S.E.2d 711 (2007) ; Jackson v. State, 278 Ga. 235, 239(5)(a), 599 S.E.2d 129 (2004). Moreover, a strategy that presents alternative def......
-
Devega v. State
...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). The specific claims of ineffective assistance are as (a) Devega contends that his attorney was ineffective in failing to ......