Martin v. State, S97A0772
| Decision Date | 03 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. S97A0772,S97A0772 |
| Citation | 492 S.E.2d 223,268 Ga. 584 |
| Parties | , 97 FCDR 4022 MARTIN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Karen Brown Williams, Atlanta, for Kendrick Martin.
Desiree Sutton Peagler, Asst. Dist. Atty., Decatur, Deborah Lynn Gale, Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Atlanta, for the State.
Paula K. Smith, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Atlanta, for other interested parties.
Kendrick Martin pled guilty to the malice murder of Roland Wilson, and to one count of theft by receiving stolen property, and to one count of possession of cocaine. 1 He appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and contends the court should have granted the motion because his counsel was ineffective, resulting in manifest injustice and pleas that were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. See State v. Evans, 265 Ga. 332, 336(3), 454 S.E.2d 468 (1995); Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.12.
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of a guilty plea, Martin must show counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that, absent counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty. Tarwater v. State, 259 Ga. 516, 517, 383 S.E.2d 883 (1989). A court's finding that counsel has rendered effective assistance will be affirmed unless it is clearly erroneous. Kelly v. State, 267 Ga. 252, 253(2), 477 S.E.2d 110 (1996).
Martin argues counsel erred in not interviewing witnesses, in not seeking ballistics tests of the gun carried by Martin, and in failing to file motions or request pretrial hearings. However, Martin was apprehended in Tennessee some time after the murder and no evidence was presented to show the gun that fired the fatal shot was available for testing. The only mention in the record of a .22 caliber gun, which is the size that matched the fatal bullet, was that such a gun had been destroyed before the plea hearing. Counsel did file a motion to sever Martin's trial from that of his codefendants and to suppress their statements against him, and Martin did not show the trial court why further motions or pretrial hearings would have been warranted or might have changed the situation Martin faced.
Counsel testified he had not interviewed witnesses because he had full access to the State's file and saw no indication in witness statements or police reports that any witness held information that could assist in defending the murder charge. Counsel spoke with the attorneys representing two codefendants and learned that they would testify Martin fired the fatal shot and was the only one of the assailants who carried a .22 caliber gun. Codefendants' testimony and statements, as well as Martin's own custodial statement, would show the men approached Wilson intending to rob him and counsel decided any claim of self-defense based on Wilson's reaching into his pocket was not viable. Counsel advised Martin that his chance of being convicted of, and sentenced for, all charges was high. Martin recognized that he had a difficult choice and chose to accept the plea agreement the State offered.
The court found there had been no showing of how interviewing prospective witnesses would have produced a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Georgia Dept. of Corrections, S97A0739
... ... the intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of her rights under the State Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was originally filed in the State Court of Fulton ... ...
-
Moore v. State
...Maddox, supra at 826-827(3), (4), 607 S.E.2d 587; Hill v. State, 267 Ga.App. 357, 599 S.E.2d 307 (2004). 6. Martin v. State, 268 Ga. 584, 584-585, 492 S.E.2d 223 (1997) (citation omitted). 7. See Suggs v. State, 272 Ga. 85, 87(4), 526 S.E.2d 347 (2000). 8. See id. at 88, 526 S.E.2d 347. 9. ......
-
Ellis v. State, A99A1820.
...no merit in Ellis's argument that the withdrawal of his guilty plea must be allowed to correct a manifest injustice. Martin v. State, 268 Ga. 584, 585, 492 S.E.2d 223 (1997). Judgment ANDREWS, P.J., and RUFFIN, J., concur. 1.Williams v. Duffy applies prospectively only because it announced ......
-
McCloud v. State, A99A2047.
...on appeal because the trial court's finding on these issues will not be disturbed absent a showing of clear error. Martin v. State, 268 Ga. 584, 585, 492 S.E.2d 223. In the case sub judice, defendant's trial attorney testified that he began consulting with defendant more than two months bef......