Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 27 January 2020
• Docket Number: S19A1250
• Citation: 838 S.E.2d 314,307 Ga. 689
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. THE STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

307 Ga. 689

838 S.E.2d 314

WILLIAMS

v.THE STATE.

S19A1250

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: January 27, 2020

Allen Williams, GDC#1000515664, Jenkins Correctional Center, 3404 Kent Farm Drive, Millen, Georgia 30442, for Appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Vanessa Therese Sassano, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Mark Samuel Lindemann, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Clifford Paul Bowden, District Attorney, Tifton Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, 225 North Tift Avenue, 3rd Floor, Tifton, Georgia 31794, for Appellee.

Bethel, Justice.

Following his conviction for the murder of Barry Bullard, Allen Deverna Williams appeals, pro se, from the denial of his motion for a new trial.¹ Williams argues numerous errors, including: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) that he received ineffective assistance from post-trial counsel; (3) that the trial court ruled on his motion for a new trial without being prompted to do so; and (4) that several errors arose from an alleged "conflict of interest" involving Williams’ former counsel. Finding no error, we affirm.²

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at trial shows the following. On July 30, 2008, Williams was driving through a neighborhood in Tifton. Two friends of his, Neddrick Green and Jeremy Reynolds, were also in the car. Ernest Jackson was standing in a nearby yard when he saw Williams and his friends drive through the area. Jackson recognized the men and noticed Williams glaring, so Jackson went to alert Barry Bullard in a nearby apartment. Williams, Bullard, and the others had been friends, but a dispute between Bullard and Williams had recently arisen that soured the relationship.

Bullard made his way to the area where Jackson had seen Williams driving by. Williams backed into a parking space across the street from where Bullard and Jackson were standing. While the car was parked, Green got out of the vehicle, retrieved a long gun from the backseat, and got back into the car. Michael Taylor, who had been standing with Bullard and Jackson, saw Green retrieve the weapon and ran to hide behind the nearby apartments. Williams’ vehicle then sped towards where Bullard and Jackson were standing, stopped, and Williams and his friends exited the vehicle.

Bullard then repeatedly told Williams and Williams’ friends, "I ain’t got no beef with y’all." The men argued and Williams yelled, "Yeah, n****r, I’m ready to die, I’ve been snorting all night." Williams and Green both had guns drawn when Green punched Bullard in the face. As Williams and Green turned back towards the car, Reynolds walked up to Bullard and shot him in the face. Jackson ran away as Bullard fell to the ground.

Williams, Green, and Reynolds all tried to flee the scene in Williams’ vehicle, but Williams crashed into a mailbox and trashcan. Bullard then got to his feet and shot in the direction of Williams and the incapacitated vehicle. Williams suffered a gunshot wound

to the leg, but ran from the scene with Reynolds, who said, "I think I got him." Bullard ultimately died as a result of his gunshot wound. A note passed in jail from Williams to Reynolds instructing Reynolds how to testify in Williams’ case was later intercepted.

1. Williams argues that the evidence was insufficient for a rational jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence showed that Bullard was fatally shot by Reynolds, and that the trial court therefore should have overturned the verdict on the general grounds under a "thirteenth juror" standard. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and that Williams’ argument with respect to the "thirteenth juror" standard lacks merit.

(a) As an initial matter, we disagree with Williams’ contention that the evidence was insufficient because Reynolds fatally shot Bullard. OCGA § 16-2-20 (a) provides that anyone "concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime." A person is "concerned with the commission of a crime" if that person, among other things, "intentionally aids or abets" the commission of the crime or "intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures" another individual to commit the crime. OCGA § 16-2-20 (b) (3-4). To be convicted, a person need not necessarily be the one directly committing the crime. See Cisneros v. State , 299 Ga. 841, 846-848 (2), 792 S.E.2d 326 (2016). And although mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient to convict someone of being a party to a crime, criminal intent may be inferred from conduct before, during, and after the commission of a crime. See Williams v. State , 304 Ga. 658, 661 (1), 821 S.E.2d 351 (2018) ; Powell v. State , 291 Ga. 743, 744-745 (1), 733 S.E.2d 294 (2012).

Williams was charged as a party to the crime. He was driving the vehicle with the other perpetrators and got out, armed, and confronted Bullard, stating "Yeah, n****r, I’m ready to die, I’ve been snorting all night." Reynolds then walked up to Bullard and shot him. Williams drove the car away from the scene with the others and then ran away with Reynolds after crashing the car. This evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Williams guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as a party to malice murder. See Green v. State , 302 Ga. 816, 817 (1), 809 S.E.2d 738 (2018) (evidence sufficient under similar facts to affirm conviction for Williams’ co-defendant who also did not shoot Bullard). See also Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; Vega v. State , 285 Ga. 32, 33, 673 S.E.2d 223 (2009) ("It was for the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence." (citation and punctuation omitted)).

(b) To the extent Williams argues that the trial court failed to correctly apply the "thirteenth juror" standard, this argument also lacks merit. When a defendant challenges his conviction on the general grounds, OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, and contends the verdict was contrary to the evidence or lacked evidence to support it, a trial court has broad discretion to sit as the "thirteenth juror" and consider certain matters beyond the sufficiency of the evidence. See Allen v. State , 296 Ga. 738, 740 (2), 770 S.E.2d 625 (2015). These additional matters include conflicts in the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence. See id.

As relevant here, the court’s order denying the motion said that it considered the credibility of the witnesses in addition to the weight of the evidence presented at trial and concluded, in denying the motion for new trial on the general grounds, that the evidence was sufficient to find Williams guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court therefore ruled on the motion based on its own independent review of the trial record and found no discrepancy between the jury’s conclusions regarding the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses and the court’s own views of those matters. "This is not a case where the trial court explicitly declined to consider the credibility of the witnesses in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial or made clear its belief that it had no discretion to grant a new trial despite disagreeing with the jury’s verdict." Burney v. State , 299 Ga. 813, 816 (1), 792 S.E.2d 354 (2016) (citation and punctuation omitted). Accordingly, this enumeration of error lacks merit.

(c) To the extent Williams argues that the trial court erred in its capacity as the "thirteenth juror" by denying him a new trial under OCGA § 5-5-21, this argument also fails. Whether to grant a new trial under OCGA § 5-5-21 is committed solely to the discretion of the trial court, and when an appellant asks this Court to review a trial court’s denial of a new trial on this ground, we review the case under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia , supra. See Dent v. State , 303 Ga. 110, 114 (2), 810 S.E.2d 527 (2018). And as explained above, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find Williams guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of which he was convicted. Accordingly, this enumeration of error lacks merit.

2. Williams argues next that his post-trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because she did not file an amended motion for new trial explicitly adopting the grounds for appeal that were raised in the motion for new trial filed by trial counsel or independently raise any additional claims, thus resulting in "abandonment" of unspecified claims. We disagree.

Generally, when a preserved^{[3 ]} ineffective assistance of counsel claim is raised for the first time on appeal, we must remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue. But remand is not mandated if we can determine from the record that the defendant cannot establish ineffective assistance of counsel under the two-prong test set forth in Strickland [v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ].

Anthony v. State , 302 Ga. 546, 554 (V), 807 S.E.2d 891 (2017). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance under Strickland , Williams must demonstrate that: (1) counsel’s performance was professionally deficient; and (2) counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him. See Strickland , 466 U. S. at 687 (III), 104 S.Ct. 2052.

Williams has failed to meet this high burden because he does not specifically identify what additional claims his post-trial counsel should have argued and how those claims would have been meritorious. Further, the claims raised in the motion for a new trial were still before the trial court despite not being raised for a second time in an amended motion, and the trial court ruled on...