Holland v. State

314 Ga. 181

875 S.E.2d 800

HOLLAND

v.The STATE.

S22A0468

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: June 30, 2022

Robert Kenner, Law Offices of Robert Kenner, Jr., 3992 Redan Road, Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083, Carey Renard Johnson, Law Offices of Carey R. Johnson, 3992 Redan Road, Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083, for Appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Paula Khristian Smith, Christopher M. Carr, Kathleen Leona McCanless, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Fani T. Willis, Lyndsey Hurst Rudder, Fulton County District Attorney's Office, 136 Pryor Street 4th Floor, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Charles Anthony Jones, Fulton County District Attorney's Office, 136 Pryor Street SW Third Floor, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Juliana Sleeper, Fulton County - Office of the Fulton County Attorney, 141 Pryor Street, SW Suite 4038, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Kevin Christopher Armstrong, Fulton County District Attorney's Office, 136 Pryor Street 4th Floor, Atlanta, Georgia 30306, for Appellee.

Boggs, Presiding Justice.

Appellant Leonard Holland challenges his 2008 convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of James Gary Jones.¹ Appellant contends that the trial court erred by ruling that Appellant's video-recorded statements could be used for impeachment purposes, by admitting Appellant's written statements allegedly made in violation of Miranda ,² and by admitting Appellant's written statements as similar-transaction evidence. Appellant further contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in two respects and that the cumulative prejudicial effect of the trial court's and trial counsel's errors entitles him to a new trial under State v. Lane , 308 Ga. 10, 21-23 (4), 838 S.E.2d 808 (2020). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

1. (a) The evidence at trial showed the following. During the evening of March 14, 2002, Jones arrived at his friend Victoria Gillespie's house, where Appellant and his friend Hussain Abdullah were already present. Jones had a rifle in a bag in his truck. Jones told Appellant that there was a person in the Capitol Homes public housing community who had some information on a potential robbery opportunity. Jones then drove Appellant and Abdullah away from Gillespie's house. Once they were in his truck, Jones asked Appellant if he had a gun, but Appellant said no.

When they arrived at their destination, a house off of Sells Avenue in the West End neighborhood of Atlanta, Appellant told Abdullah to stay in the truck before Appellant and Jones began to walk up a driveway. Appellant then shot Jones once in the back of the head and twice in the torso, killing him. Appellant and Abdullah disposed of Jones’ body a few miles away, and Appellant told Abdullah they needed to wipe down the truck. Appellant found a water bottle and rag inside the truck, which he and Abdullah used to clean the truck in an effort to remove any evidence. Appellant also found the rifle bag and put a gun from his waistband inside. Appellant then threw the rifle bag into a nearby trash can, and Abdullah threw the rag and water bottle on top of a nearby building. Appellant later went back with Abdullah and retrieved the rifle bag.

The next morning, Appellant went to Abdullah's house to explain why Appellant killed Jones. Appellant told Abdullah that there was a previous incident between Jones and Appellant and that Jones had told a mutual friend that he was so mad he wanted to kill Appellant. Appellant also told Abdullah Jones had "ripped him off" over some money related to a previous robbery Appellant and he had committed. Appellant threatened Abdullah to not tell anyone, but on May 28, 2003, Abdullah told the police about Jones’ murder and led them to the water bottle and rag, which were still on top of the building. Abdullah later testified against Appellant at trial. Appellant chose not to testify at trial.

(b) Appellant was arrested for murder late in the evening of August 13, 2004, and was taken to the Atlanta Police Department. Immediately following his arrest, Appellant was interviewed by Detective Bobby Render from the late evening of August 13 to the early morning of August 14. This interview was video-recorded. At the beginning of the interview, Appellant was read his rights under Miranda .

Detective Render suspected that Appellant was involved in several unsolved murders in addition to Jones’ murder, and Appellant stated early in the interview, "My life as I know it is over with." Before Appellant divulged any information about his involvement in any murder, however, Detective Render told Appellant, "You know what, listen, they only charge you with what they charge you with, so now we got just one. Gotta clear the rest up but you'll only get charged with one." Appellant then admitted multiple murders, including that of Jones. Detective Render told Appellant, "This is what they [the prosecutors] need bro. Full disclosure from you on everything. From any shooting, from any murder. Then we can go through and clear these files." Appellant stated, "Someone has to pay for these murders, man." Detective Render responded, "That's the pay. Call it what you want but that's the pay. We can clear it. We've got 20 murders, not saying you did all 20 but if you are claiming 20 – bro, come on – 20 for 1, that's the f***ing deal of the century." Appellant then divulged specific details about each of the murders he committed.

(c) More than a month later, on September 17, 2004, Detective Render interviewed Appellant at the Fulton County Detention Center after Appellant called Detective Render's office and left a voicemail asking him to visit Appellant at the jail. Appellant was advised of his rights under Miranda and initialed and signed a written waiver. Appellant then wrote out the details of several of the crimes he previously admitted to during his video-recorded interview on August 13 to 14. In what would become State's Exhibit 3-A, Appellant wrote down a list of several homicides he was involved in, including the death of Jones. In what would become State's Exhibit 3-B, Appellant listed his fellow gang members.

(d) Appellant met with Detective Render nine more times between September 2004 and March 2006. Appellant initiated contact with Detective Render before each of these meetings, and at each meeting, Appellant signed a waiver of rights form. At one of these later meetings, Appellant wrote what would later become State's Exhibit 14, which described in detail the multiple homicides other than that of Jones that Appellant and his fellow gang members had committed that Appellant previously admitted to during his video-recorded interview and in Exhibit 3-A. On the front of Exhibit 14, Appellant wrote the words "Volunteered Information," and he underlined them three times. At the bottom of the exhibit, Appellant wrote, "I agree to a videotape to show participants that I am cooperating and that I have turned State's Evidence."

(e) Before trial, Appellant filed a motion to suppress all the statements he made to the police. This included the video-recorded statement that he gave on August 13 to 14, 2004, as well as State's Exhibits 3-A, 3-B, and 14. After Appellant filed this motion, he and the State stipulated that the video-recorded statement made on August 13 to 14, was obtained because the detective provided an improper hope of benefit and that the video was therefore inadmissible as substantive evidence at trial but could be used to impeach Appellant if he were to testify inconsistently. The trial court entered a consent order reflecting the parties’ stipulation. Appellant did not testify at trial, so the video recording was never introduced.

On November 30, 2007, the trial court held a hearing on whether to suppress Appellant's written statements. The hearing continued on December 4, 2007. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding that Appellant initiated contact with Detective Render in each instance prior to their meetings and holding that the written statements contained in Exhibits 3-A, 3-B, and 14 were made "voluntarily with full knowledge of the defendant's constitutional rights to counsel."

Appellant later filed another motion to suppress the statements contained in what became Exhibits 3-A, 3-B, and 14. On October 17, 2008, the trial court held another suppression hearing. At the end of the hearing, the trial court determined that

[b]ased on the totality of the evidence and the point that at some point your client initiated contact with the detective, the numerous waiver of counsel forms, and the handwriting of your client on State's 14 that ["]I agree to a videotape to show participants that I am cooperating, that I have turned State's evidence,["] I'm going to rule that your client clearly knew [what] he was providing[. I]n concert with a waiver of counsel and with a notice that what he said could and would be used against him in a court of law, a reasonable person wouldn't have an expectation of confidentiality.

The trial court then denied Appellant's second motion to suppress his statements in Exhibits 3-A, 3-B, and 14.

The State also filed a notice of intent to present evidence of 13 similar transactions, including Appellant's previous convictions as well as evidence of his involvement in several murders in which he was a suspect but had not been indicted. As part of its evidence, the State intended to introduce Exhibits 3-A, 3-B, and 14, in which Appellant confessed to being a part of several murders alongside his fellow gang members. A similar-transaction hearing took place on November 30, 2007, and continued on December 4, 2007. After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the trial court found that the State's listed purposes of course of conduct, intent, and motive were valid purposes and that the State met the requirements to introduce similar-transaction evidence under former Uniform Rule of Superior Court 31.3 (B).³ The trial court also...