Walker v. State

• Decision Date: 07 January 2013
• Docket Number: No. S12A1575.,S12A1575.
• Parties: WALKER v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

292 Ga. 262
737 S.E.2d 311

WALKER
v.
The STATE.

No. S12A1575.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 7, 2013.

[737 S.E.2d 312]

Brandon Alexander Bullard, Georgia Public Defender Standards Council, Atlanta, Henry Allen Hibbert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Paula Khristian Smith, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Samuel S. Olens, Atty. Gen., David Andrew Bikoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Sheila Elizabeth Gallow, Sr. Asst. Dist. Atty., Office of the District Attorney, for appellant.

Paul L. Howard, Dist. Atty., Paige Reese Whitaker, Deputy Dist. Atty., Office of the District Attorney, for appellee.

BENHAM, Justice.

[292 Ga. 262]Appellant Zerrick Breion Walker was convicted of the malice murder of Ronaldo Lorenzo Hill and possession of a firearm during

[737 S.E.2d 313]

the commission of a felony.¹ On appeal, he contends the evidence was not sufficient to authorize his convictions and that he received [292 Ga. 263]ineffective assistance of trial counsel; he also contends the trial court, in ruling on his amended motion for new trial, did not apply the standard of review requiring the exercise of discretion with which it is imbued under OCGA §§ 5–5–20 and 5–5–21 and seeks remand of his case to the trial court for proper consideration of the amended motion for new trial. We agree with his latter contention and remand the case to the trial court to consider the amended motion for new trial under the proper standard.

1. The State presented evidence that Ronaldo Lorenzo Hill was shot by a man who entered the barbershop where Hill worked, spoke with Hill, walked away from Hill toward the door of the shop, and turned and fired a gun at Hill while leaving the shop. The assailant fired a second shot at the barbershop from outside, and then fled the scene in a waiting white Ford F150 pickup truck. Another barber in the shop at the time of the shooting recognized the shooter as a somewhat regular customer whose hair the victim had cut recently. At trial, the barber and a customer identified appellant as the man who shot the victim, and another customer identified a photo of appellant taken on the day of the shooting as a photo of the shooter. On the day of the shooting, the white Ford pickup truck in which the assailant arrived and departed was parked in such a way as to block the vehicle of an insurance claims investigator examining a car in the parking lot adjacent to the barbershop. The claims investigator identified appellant as the man who exited the pickup truck from the passenger side, leaving the door open; entered the barbershop, after which the witness heard a gunshot; displayed a stainless steel revolver pistol as he exited the barbershop; fired a shot at the barbershop from outside; and re-entered the passenger side of the pickup truck, which drove off. The claims investigator used a cellular phone to call for emergency assistance and gave the dispatcher a description of appellant and the white pickup truck, including its license tag number. It was stopped by police shortly thereafter. The victim of the shooting was transported to the hospital where, after undergoing four surgical procedures, he died seventeen days later. The witnesses inside the barbershop testified that the victim did not have a gun and made no threatening moves toward appellant; the insurance claims adjuster testified that no one from the barbershop chased appellant as he left the shop.

The above-summarized evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

[292 Ga. 264]2. Appellant asserts the trial court failed to apply the proper standard of...