Wiggins v. State

• Decision Date: 12 June 2006
• Docket Number: No. S06A0772.,S06A0772.
• Citation: 280 Ga. 627,632 S.E.2d 80
• Parties: WIGGINS v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

280 Ga. 627

Page 80

632 S.E.2d 80

WIGGINS v. The STATE.

No. S06A0772.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 12, 2006.

Wystan Brennan Getz, Oakhurst Law Group of Getz, L.L.C., Decatur, for Appellant.

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Dist. Atty., Barbara Blaine Conroy, Deputy Asst. Dist. Atty., Daniel James Quinn, Asst. Dist. Atty., Decatur, Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Robin Joy Leigh, Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Atlanta, for Appellee.

CARLEY, Justice.

A jury found Kourtnay Wiggins guilty of malice murder of Truvoy Washington, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for that crime. Wiggins' motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals from the judgment of conviction and life sentence entered on the jury's guilty verdict.^*

1. The State's theory was that Wiggins murdered Washington with a baseball bat, and that robbery was the motive for the homicide. At trial, the prosecution introduced evidence showing that the victim and a group of his friends were drinking at the same bar as Wiggins. When Washington's companions left about 3 a.m., he stayed and told them that someone would bring him home. He had his wallet in his possession. Between 3:30 and 4 a.m., a resident of the apartment complex where Wiggins lived in a unit rented by his girlfriend heard a pounding noise in the parking lot that "sounded like some type of aluminum, like it could have been a bat or something." At 4 a.m., Washington was discovered lying in the parking lot. He was bleeding from an injury to the left side of his head, a pocket of his pants was turned inside out and his wallet was missing. Washington was dead on arrival at the hospital. The cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head.

Because Wiggins lived in the complex and was known to carry a baseball bat, the police wanted to speak with him. His girlfriend initially denied that he was home, but then admitted that he was. The officers did not arrest him, but only requested that he talk with them. He agreed and voluntarily went with them to headquarters. Wiggins initially told the officers that he left the bar at 12:30 a.m. for work and that he returned to his girlfriend's apartment at 7:30 a.m. However, this was inconsistent with the statement of his girlfriend, who had informed the police that he arrived much earlier and told her "he had been in a fight." When the officers expressed doubt about his statement, Wiggins started to offer a different version. At that point, he received the warnings mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Wiggins then admitted striking Washington with a bat, but claimed that he acted in self-defense because the victim and another man had attacked him. His statement also included an assertion that he found a wallet some weeks earlier at the bar, and had spoken with the bar manager about his discovery. However, the bar manager denied that such a conversation occurred. The girlfriend's apartment was searched pursuant to her consent. A baseball bat and other evidence was seized. Later, the apartment was searched pursuant to a warrant, and a bloody plastic bag containing a wallet was found hidden under a mattress. It contained the victim's identification and receipts issued within days of the murder.

At trial, Wiggins did not testify or call any witnesses, but relied upon the claim of self defense made in his second statement to the officers. When construed most strongly in support of the jury's verdict, the evidence is sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find him guilty of malice murder of Washington beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2. Wiggins urges that his trial counsel was ineffective. To prevail on that claim requires proof that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In order to meet this burden, Wiggins must overcome the strong presumption that the performance of his defense counsel falls within the broad range of reasonable conduct. Domingues v. State, 277 Ga. 373, 374(2), 589 S.E.2d 102 (2003). Here, that presumption was reinforced by the testimony of Wiggins' trial attorney herself, who appeared at the hearing on the motion for new trial where she explained her challenged actions and inactions. Having heard all of the evidence including counsel's testimony, the trial court found no merit in the ineffectiveness claim. On appeal, this Court accepts the trial court's findings of fact, unless they are clearly erroneous. However, the trial court's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Jones v. State, 280 Ga. 205, 206(2), 625 S.E.2d 1 (2005).

a) Initially, Wiggins cites the failure of his attorney to object to the admission of both of his statements. He relies upon Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004) and urges that the officers engaged in an impermissible interrogation procedure when they questioned him prior to giving him the Miranda warnings.

In Seibert, the officers arrested the accused, subjected her to custodial questioning, obtained a confession, and only then complied with the mandate of Miranda. Thereafter, a signed waiver was obtained from the arrestee and she gave a second confession. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court of the United States held that both statements were inadmissible, concluding that

it would ordinarily be unrealistic to treat two spates of integrated and proximately conducted questioning as independent interrogations subject to independent evaluation simply because Miranda warnings formally punctuate them in the middle.

Missouri v. Seibert, supra at 614(IV), 124 S.Ct. 2601.

The circumstances in this case are very different. At the time Wiggins made his first statement, he was not under arrest and not subject to custodial interrogation. Defense counsel testified that he admitted to her "that he had not been coerced, that he went voluntarily down to the police station, and he was not under arrest when he made the statement." "`(W)here (an) accused (is) neither in custody nor so restrained as to equate to a formal arrest, any statements made to (an) investigating officer (are) made under noncustodial circumstances and Miranda warnings (are) not required.' [Cit.]" Heckman v. State, 276 Ga. 141, 143(1), 576 S.E.2d 834 (2003). Thus, unlike Seibert, Wiggins' initial statement was not subject to suppression....