Russell v. State, S98A0657.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. S98A0657.,S98A0657. |
| Parties | RUSSELL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Billy M. Grantham, Donalsonville, for Bobby Lee Russell.
Robert Ray Auman, Chief Asst. Dist. Atty., Cairo, J. Brown Moseley, Dist Atty., Bainbridge, Hon. Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Angelica M. Woo, Asst. Atty. Gen., Paula K. Smith, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Atlanta, for the State.
This Court previously affirmed Bobby Lee Russell's conviction for malice murder and remanded for consideration of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Following a hearing, the trial court rejected this claim.2 Because Russell has failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient, we affirm.
1. To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that the attorney's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.3 In evaluating an attorney's performance, there is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Where trial counsel does not testify at the motion for new trial hearing, it is extremely difficult to overcome this presumption.4
2. Russell failed to subpoena his trial counsel for the hearing below. Therefore, he has not carried his burden of showing that his counsel failed to have a blade found at the scene of the crime dusted for fingerprints; that he did not follow up on the investigation by federal agents; and that he failed to visit the scene of the crime. Even taking these contentions as true, we are unable to conclude that trial counsel's conduct was not within the acceptable range of reasonable professional performance.
Russell also contends that trial counsel failed to interview and prepare witnesses and to investigate other lines of defense. The trial court, however, found that trial counsel presented five witnesses who testified consistently with Russell's theory of self-defense. The trial court also found that counsel located one of these witnesses through his own independent investigation, and this finding is not clearly erroneous. Additionally, Russell himself testified at the hearing that he had no other defenses he wished presented.
Finally, Russell contends that trial counsel failed to present evidence that Russell had previously lost use of his left hand and therefore would have been unwilling to fight....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. State
...difficult to overcome this presumption.' [Cit.]" Rivers v. State, 271 Ga. 115, 117(2), 516 S.E.2d 525 (1999); Russell v. State, 269 Ga. 511(1), 501 S.E.2d 206 (1998). Because his trial attorney did not testify on the motion for new trial, Morgan "`made no affirmative showing that the purpor......
-
Chatman v. Mancill, No. S05A1862.
...558 S.E.2d 707 (2002), and strongly presumed to fall within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Russell v. State, 269 Ga. 511(1), 501 S.E.2d 206 (1998). "[I]t is extremely difficult to overcome this presumption" where counsel does not testify. Morgan v. State, 275 Ga. 222,......
- Wall v. State
-
Payne v. the State.
...see Owens, 286 Ga. at 827, 693 S.E.2d 490, and we must assume that her testimony would not support his claims. See Russell v. State, 269 Ga. 511, 511, 501 S.E.2d 206 (1998) (“In evaluating an attorney's performance, there is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide ......