Reed v. State, S19A1342
Decision Date | 23 December 2019 |
Docket Number | S19A1342 |
Citation | 307 Ga. 527,837 S.E.2d 272 |
Parties | REED v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Brian Steel, The Steel Law Firm, P.C., 1800 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, for Appellant.
Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Paula Khristian Smith, Christopher M. Carr, Katherine DeRosa Emerson, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia, Layla Hinton Zon, Amber Rae Bennett, Alcovy Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, 1132 Usher Street, N.W. Suite 313, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, for Appellee.
Appellant Hentrez Reed was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Nigel James. On appeal, he contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in three ways: (1) by not filing a motion to suppress inculpatory statements Appellant made during his interview by the police; (2) by not filing a motion to suppress his historical cell site location information; and (3) by not objecting to the admission of testimony regarding an "affidavit" he wrote and the admission of an accompanying note written by a co-defendant. We affirm.1
1. As described in our opinion affirming the convictions of Appellant’s co-defendant Curtis McCammon, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at their joint trial showed the following2 :
. His car was stopped in the middle of the street with the engine still running; the car had blood and bullet holes in it. James told the officers that he had been shot near the bridge and the lake, which were next to the pool house. He asked the officers for his cell phone, indicating that it would have information about the shooter on it, but the officers could not find the cell phone at that time. James was taken to a hospital, but soon died. The police found about $1,300 in cash in James’s belongings at the hospital.
Eight days later, police officers arrested McCammon and Clemons as they were driving away from a house that they had just burglarized. In an interview with the police, McCammon admitted that he had sold stolen televisions to James and that James had called him later that day to get a refund for the television that was too small. After telling the police a variety of stories, Clemons confessed to his, Appellant’s, and McCammon’s involvement in the murder.
to his lower torso caused severe and ultimately fatal internal bleeding. Bullets recovered from James’s body and from the crime scene matched the [.45-caliber] gun that Appellant had hidden at his brother’s house. Cell phone records showed that McCammon’s and James’s phones called each other three times just minutes before the murder, that McCammon’s and Appellant’s phones were in the Ellington community area at the time of the murder, and that – although McCammon and Appellant had no phone contact in the 11 days before the murder – McCammon’s phone communicated with Appellant’s phone 36 times throughout the eight days between the murder and McCammon’s arrest.
Appellant did not testify.
McCammon v. State , 306 Ga. 516, 517-519, 832 S.E.2d 396 (2019) ( ).
Appellant does not dispute the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Nevertheless, as is this Court’s practice in murder cases, we have reviewed the record and conclude that, 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 of which he was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; McCammon , 306 Ga. at 520, 832 S.E.2d 396. See also Vega v. State , 285 Ga. 32, 33, 673 S.E.2d 223 (2009) .
2. Appellant contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in three ways. To prevail on these claims, Appellant must prove that his counsel’s performance was professionally deficient and that he was prejudiced as a result. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). To establish deficient performance, Appellant must show that counsel performed his duties 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 ; Davis v. State , 299 Ga. 180, 182-183, 787 S.E.2d 221 (2016). " ‘[A] fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.’ " Stripling v. State , 304 Ga. 131, 138, 816 S.E.2d 663 (2018) (citation omitted). To establish prejudice, Appellant must show "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. "We need not review both elements of this test if the appellant fails to prove one of them." Stripling , 304 Ga. at 138, 816 S.E.2d 663.
(a) Appellant first argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress his statements that led the police to the murder weapon. Appellant asserts that his incriminating statements during his police interview were involuntary and inadmissible under OCGA § 24-8-824 because they were induced by a "hope...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tyson v. State
...and anticipate the substance of the opinion before it was issued.(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Reed v. State , 307 Ga. 527, 534-535 (2) (b), 837 S.E.2d 272 (2019). Trial counsel therefore was not deficient in not objecting to the instruction. See id. (c) Tyson contends that his trial......
-
Matthews v. State
...of benefit under the statutory standard. See Dawson v. State , 308 Ga. 613, 618 (3), 842 S.E.2d 875 (2020) ; Reed v. State , 307 Ga. 527, 533 (2) (a), 837 S.E.2d 272 (2019). Nor was there any evidence that the investigator ever indicated that a confession would result in any leniency in cha......
-
Hill v. State
...trial, controlling precedent held that a search warrant was not required to obtain cell site location data. See Reed v. State , 307 Ga. 527, 535 (2) (b), 837 S.E.2d 272 (2019) ; Walker v. State , 306 Ga. 579, 583 (2) (a), 832 S.E.2d 420 (2019) ; see also Smarr v. State , 317 Ga. App. 584, 5......
-
Fitts v. State
...primary purpose was to establish evidence for use in a future prosecution." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Reed v. State , 307 Ga. 527, 536 (2) (c), 837 S.E.2d 272 (2019). Testimonial statements include statements made to a government officer, during a police investigation or interrog......