Potter v. State
| Decision Date | 08 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. S00A2085.,S00A2085. |
| Citation | 273 Ga. 325,540 S.E.2d 184 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | POTTER v. The STATE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Orin L. Alexis, Savannah, for appellant.
Spencer Lawton, Jr., District Attorney, Jon Hope, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Adam M. Hames, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. BENHAM, Chief Justice.
In Potter v. State, 272 Ga. 430, 530 S.E.2d 725 (2000), we affirmed appellant Al Maynard Potter's convictions for felony murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and remanded the case to the trial court for consideration of the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.1 The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the remanded issue and entered an order denying appellant's motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. This appeal is from that order.
In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance so prejudiced the client that there is a reasonable likelihood that, but for counsel's errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Smith v. Francis, 253 Ga. 782(1), 325 S.E.2d 362 (1985). The criminal defendant must overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel's conduct falls within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct. Mobley v. State, 271 Ga. 577, 523 S.E.2d 9 (1999). The trial court's determination with respect to effective assistance of counsel will be affirmed unless the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Johnson v. State, 266 Ga. 380, 383, 467 S.E.2d 542 (1996).
Appellant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel occurred when the attorney his family retained to defend him assigned the case to a less-experienced attorney in his office. Trial counsel testified at the hearing on the claim of ineffective assistance that he and the retained lawyer met with appellant and his family after the preliminary hearing and explained that the health of the retained lawyer would not permit him to conduct the trial, but that he would be involved in the case and available for consultation. As an attorney's lack of experience alone does not constitute grounds for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (Stephens v. State, 265 Ga. 120(2), 453 S.E.2d 443 (1995)), we examine the specific instances of purported error appellant contends his trial counsel committed.
Appellant first asserts that evidence of a relevant specific act of violence by the victim against a third party was not admitted at trial because trial counsel failed to give the notice required by Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.6. The trial transcript reflects that the trial court expressed a willingness to shorten the ten-day notification period provided by USCR 31.6 and admit evidence of such an incident if defense counsel could give the necessary information to the State. Trial counsel was unable to do so because he did not have all the details and was still investigating the information he had received about the prior incident. At the hearing on appellant's claim of ineffective assistance, trial counsel testified that he was unable to find a witness who could tie the victim to the prior act of violence. It thus appears that evidence of the victim's purported prior act of violence against a third party was not introduced at trial because no credible evidence was found to exist, and not because trial counsel's performance was deficient. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it concluded that appellant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, supra; Smith v. Francis, supra.
Appellant next finds fault with trial counsel's failure to seek a continuance when the trial court permitted the State to reopen the evidence to introduce newly-discovered evidence, photos of appellant holding a gun, to rebut appellant's testimony that he had not held a real gun in the last four or five years.2 The photos had been given to the assistant district attorney by members of the victim's family during the luncheon recess that followed appellant's testimony. Appellant returned to the witness stand after the rebuttal evidence was admitted and testified that the gun he was holding in the photos belonged to the other man in the photos. At the hearing on appellant's claim of ineffective assistance, appellant testified he thought a continuance was necessary in order to produce as surrebuttal evidence the man who appeared in the photos with appellant, who would testify that the gun belonged to him and not appellant. Trial counsel testified he was unaware of the existence and whereabouts of any such witness. Even assuming for the sake of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whatley v. State
...[or her] client.") (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Grier, 273 Ga. at 365 (4), 541 S.E.2d 369.42 See Potter v. State, 273 Ga. 325, 327-328, 540 S.E.2d 184 (2001) ("Whether or not to testify in one's own defense is considered a tactical decision to be made by the defendant himsel......
-
Myers v. State
...respect to effective assistance of counsel will be affirmed unless the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Potter v. State, 273 Ga. 325, 326, 540 S.E.2d 184 (2001). In his amended motion for new trial, appellant contended trial counsel was ineffective because he purportedly did no......
-
Richardson v. State
...387 S.E.2d 133 (1990). 18. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 19. Potter v. State, 273 Ga. 325, 326, 540 S.E.2d 184 (2001). 20. Id. at 328, 540 S.E.2d 21. Strickland v. Washington, supra. 22. Williams v. State, 276 Ga. 384, 387(5), 578 S.E.2d 858 ......
-
Smith v. State
...Smith's lack of a gun. Further, Smith also testified in his defense and maintained that he did not have a gun. See Potter v. State, 273 Ga. 325, 327, 540 S.E.2d 184 (2001) (no prejudice to defendant in trial counsel's failure to request a continuance because "appellant testified to the same......