Parham v. State
| Decision Date | 23 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | A20A0229 |
| Citation | 355 Ga.App. 720,845 S.E.2d 689 |
| Parties | PARHAM v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Horsley Begnaud, Mark Begnaud, for Appellant.
Paul L. Howard Jr., District Attorney, Lyndsey H. Rudder, Aslean Zachary Eaglin, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.
After a jury trial, Triston Parham was convicted of aggravated assault, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court sentenced Parham to serve a 45-year term of incarceration. Parham appeals the denial of his motion for new trial, raising four arguments.
Parham argues that the evidence does not support his convictions, but we hold that the jury was authorized to find that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt. Parham argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of three other acts, but we hold that the trial court did not abuse his discretion as to two of them and any error in admission of the third was harmless. Parham argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, but we hold that Parham has failed to show both deficient performance and prejudice. Finally, Parham argues that the trial court plainly erred by giving an improper burden-shifting charge to the jury, but we hold that any error did not mislead the jury, given the charge as a whole. So we affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to support the jury's verdict, see Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the state's evidence showed that in a three-hour period on April 22, 2014, Parham and an accomplice engaged in a crime spree, committing or attempting to commit three armed robberies targeting Hispanic victims and Hispanic communities. The victim in the case on trial, who is from Honduras, testified that he was walking to work before six in the morning when a four-door, silver or gray car passed him, made a U-turn in the shipping area of his place of employment, and pulled up to the victim. A man got out of the car, approached the victim, brandished a black weapon, and demanded that the victim give him everything in the victim's possession. The victim and the man from the car began to fight. Another man, armed with a silver handgun, exited the car.
The two men assaulted the victim with a stun gun and he fell to the ground. The men took the victim's black cell phone, his boots, and about $120 in cash. The victim ran to his workplace. One of the men followed the victim, threatening to kill him, but then retreated. The perpetrators left the scene of the crime and the police were contacted.
A police officer responded to a dispatch and met the victim at his workplace. The victim described the race, height, weight, and clothing of the perpetrators as well as the four-door car. But he was unable to identify the perpetrators in a photo lineup.
Less than five hours later, the officer was patrolling the area when he saw a man he had arrested several times before leaning into a four-door, silver car and talking to the front passenger. As soon as the person leaning into the car saw the officer, he began to walk away. The officer walked up to the car and began speaking to Parham, who was in the driver's seat. Parham's accomplice was in the passenger seat. The officer asked Parham what the man wanted and told Parham that the area was a high-crime area. The officer asked for identification from the occupants of the car. Parham gave the officer his Georgia corrections card.
Parham consented to a search of the car. The officer opened the front passenger car door to begin a search when Parham revoked his consent. However, when he opened the door, the officer saw what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette. So the officer searched the car, where he found a silver revolver and a red wallet with a woman's driver's license and financial documents in it. Parham told the officer that the revolver belonged to his accomplice and that a woman had left the wallet in the car the night before, but the name Parham gave him for the woman was not the name on the driver's license and the documents in the wallet. The officer subsequently learned that the owner of the red wallet had been the victim of an armed robbery that same day.
The officer arrested Parham and the accomplice. The officer searched Parham, who had about $300 worth of Mexican pesos on his person. The officer found the victim's black cell phone and a stun gun on the accomplice.
The state presented evidence of two crimes that occurred shortly after the crime for which Parham was being tried. Around 7:40 the same morning as the 6:00 a.m. robbery of the victim here, Parham had attempted an armed robbery of a Hispanic woman in a trailer park. The woman testified that when she was driving home from taking her child to school, a four-door, silver or gray car was blocking the road in her trailer park. A man in a neon green shirt approached her vehicle, asked her if she knew a particular person, told her to roll down her window, and then pointed a silver gun at her and demanded money or her purse. She said she did not have anything and to search her vehicle if he did not believe her. She got out of her vehicle, and the man searched the victim's vehicle, did not find anything, and got into the passenger side of the silver or gray car. Another man was in the driver's seat.
The attempted armed robbery victim's neighbor happened to take photographs of the attempted armed robbery as it was happening, and the photographs showed Parham wearing a shirt and socks of the same distinctive, bright color as the shirt and socks that he was wearing at the time of his arrest. The victim was able to record the license plate number of the car, and that license plate was on the car Parham was occupying at the time of his arrest. The victim of the attempted armed robbery identified Parham as the perpetrator from a photo lineup.
The owner of the red wallet found in the car from which Parham was arrested also testified. She testified that between 8:00 and 9:30 that same morning as the robbery at issue and the attempted armed robbery, she was returning to her predominately Hispanic trailer park from taking her children to school. Once she reached her trailer and was standing on her porch, she noticed a four-door, silver, white, or gray car.
A man exited the passenger side of the car, approached the victim, and asked whether she knew a particular person. He then pointed a "silver black" gun at her stomach and took her wallet, the same wallet that was found in the car when Parham was arrested. The victim's husband opened the door and pulled her into the trailer, and the robber fled behind the trailer. The victim was able to identify the perpetrator from a photo lineup.
The state also presented evidence of an armed robbery committed by Parham in 2004. The victim in that case testified that he was robbed at gunpoint when he went to see his daughter and ex-wife in a predominately Hispanic trailer park. As the victim waited outside for his daughter, a car with two men pulled up, one of the men jumped out of the passenger side of the car, pointed a rifle in the victim's face, and took some money. The victim called 911 and, within minutes, law enforcement officers saw the perpetrators’ vehicle just after it left the trailer park. They pursued the vehicle, never losing sight of it. The officers were able to detain the occupants, one of whom was Parham. Parham was charged with armed robbery, aggravated assault, and obstruction.
State v. Holmes , 304 Ga. 524, 526 (1), 820 S.E.2d 26 (2018). Here, "[t]he evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than [Parham's] guilt ... and for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that [Parham] was guilty of [the charged crimes]." Carson v. State , 308 Ga. 761, 764 (1), 843 S.E.2d 421 (2020). See also Bradshaw v. State , 296 Ga. 650, 652-653 (2), 769 S.E.2d 892 (2015) () (citation and punctuation omitted).
Parham argues that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the state to present evidence of the three other acts. We disagree.
We hold that two of the three other acts were intrinsic evidence because they were part of the crime spree and that their probative value outweighed any prejudice. We hold that any error in admitting evidence of the third other act was harmless.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clarke v. State
...the crime for the jury.(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Clark , 306 Ga. at 374 (4), 829 S.E.2d 306. See also Parham v. State , 355 Ga.App. 720 (2) (a), 845 S.E.2d 689 (2020) (evidence is intrinsic where it is a "link in the chain of events leading up to [the defendant's] arrest and compl......
-
Garrett v. Dep't of Human Servs.
... ... DHS answered and moved to dismiss/for judgment on the pleadings,7 on the basis of lack of waiver of sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim for relief. Fields also moved for dismissal of the claims against her, arguing that the plaintiffs initially misidentified her as a DHS ... ...
-
In re Smart
... ... Shelton, Paula J. Frederick, Jenny K. Mittelman, William Dallas NeSmith, State Bar of Georgia, 104 Marietta Street, NW Suite 100, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, for Appellee.Per Curiam.Don Smart (State Bar No. 653525), who was admitted ... ...
-
Preliminaries
...the defendant’s livelihood was not being challenged and that the jury was to disregard the previous remark. GEORGIA Parham v. State , 355 Ga. App. 720, 845 S.E.2d 689 (2020). The “golden rule” of improper opening and closing arguments forbids any argument that, regardless of the nomenclatur......