Case Law Sinkfield v. State

Sinkfield v. State

Document Cited Authorities (45) Cited in Related

Frances C. Kuo, David Allen Hoort, Georgia Public Defender Council, 270 Washington Street, Suite 5198, Atlanta Georgia 30334, for Appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Sarah Jane Thomas, Clint Christopher Malcolm, Assistant Attorney General, Meghan Hobbs Hill, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney

General, Chelsea Sharonlyn-Clyde Harvey, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta Georgia 30334-1300, Fani T. Willis, District Attorney, Charles Anthony Jones Jr., Senior A.D.A., Kevin Christopher Armstrong, Senior A.D.A., Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, 136 Pryor Street SW, Third Floor, Atlanta Georgia 30303, for Appellee.

Boggs, Chief Justice.

Appellant Remond Sinkfield challenges his convictions for felony, murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Levi Atkinson, who either was pushed or jumped out of a moving vehicle after an altercation with Appellant, was struck by another car, and died from his injuries five days later. Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for felony murder and theft by taking; that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a pretrial interview by police; that the trial court committed plain error in several ways; and that the trial court abused its discretion in various evidentiary rulings. He also contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his trial counsel’s deficiencies, Including by failing to retain a medical expert to testify as to the cause of Atkinson’s death. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.1

1. The evidence presented at trial showed the following.2 Appellant and Atkinson were acquaintances, and Appellant supplied Atkinson with drugs and prostitutes. Atkinson owned a business and was generous with his money, occasionally paying bills, such as for rent and cell phone service, for Appellant and others, and also sometimes lent his car to Appellant and others. Late in the evening on January 23, 2012, Atkinson was at his home in Douglas County celebrating his birthday with Deshanqueanna Lundy, who was Appellant’s girlfriend. Early the next morning, on January 24, Appellant was driven to Atkinson’s home by Cleo Simmons; Lisa Johnson was with them. Appellant delivered crack and powder cocaine to Atkinson, and the four consumed the drugs. Later that morning, Atkinson gave Appellant his ATM card so Appellant could withdraw money to pay for the drugs Appellant had delivered. Appellant and Simmons left the home, drove to an ATM machine, and used Atkinson’s ATM card to withdraw $300, which was the daily limit for Atkinson’s ATM card; Appellant also bought additional drugs. After Appellant and Simmons returned, the group continued to use drugs.

In the early afternoon, Appellant and Lundy borrowed Atkinson’s car and left. After dropping off Lundy, Appellant saw a police officer who knew him and knew that he did not have a valid driver’s license. To avoid being arrested for driving with a suspended license, Appellant turned into a Travelodge motel in Fulton County near the intersection of Pulton Industrial Boulevard and I-20, where he sometimes stayed. Appellant parked Atkinson’s car and left.

In the early evening, Atkinson received a call from his friend Charlene Shivers. Shivers told Atkinson that she had seen his car at the Travelodge. Atkinson asked Shivers for a ride so he could pick up his car. When Atkinson and Shivers arrived at the Travelodge, the police were preparing to impound the car, but Atkinson was able to retrieve it and drive it home. By the time Atkinson arrived back home, Johnson and Simmons were gone.

Later that evening, Simmons drove Appellant back to Atkinson’s home. Appellant demanded payment for Lundy’s time and for the crack cocaine he had delivered earlier in the day; however, Atkinson did not have any cash. Atkinson, Appellant, and Simmons drove away in Atkinson’s car. During the drive, Atkinson tried to obtain cash by calling Shivers and his two daughters, who lived in Atlanta. He and Appellant also went to Shivers’s room at the Skyway Inn, a motel near the intersection of Fulton Industrial Boulevard and I-20. Atkinson was unable to obtain any cash, and after leaving Shivers’s room, Appellant and Atkinson returned to the car, and they picked up Johnson, who had been at the Skyway. Shortly thereafter, Atkinson either jumped or was pushed from the car while it was in the middle of an intersection, and he was, hit by at least one other car.

Atkinson was seriously injured, but he spoke with several people at the scene before being transported to the hospital; he died five days later. Maria Gallo, who was in another car in the intersection, testified she saw Atkinson in the middle of Fulton Industrial Boulevard, screaming that he had been kidnapped by men who wanted to kill him. He came over to her car and tried to open the door. She saw two men get out of another car that was stopped in the intersection, walk over to Atkinson, scream at him in an "ugly" way, and aggressively try to take him away. Atkinson continued to scream for help, saying that the men were trying to kill him, and telling the men to leave. When police officers arrived, the two men returned to their car and drove away quickly.

Corporal David Jira of the Fulton County Police Department was the first officer on the scene. Atkinson told him that he had been kidnapped at gunpoint from his home in Douglas County and that when, he got to the intersection of Fulton Industrial and I-20, he was pushed from the car. Atkinson told a paramedic at the scene that he jumped out of a car because someone tried to kill him; the paramedic testified at trial that Atkinson smelled of alcohol, About an hour later, Cpl. Jira discovered Atkinson’s car parked by a gas pump at a gas station about a mile from the intersection where Atkinson had been injured. Cpl. Jira was familiar with Appellant and knew that he had been identified as a suspect. He saw Appellant inside the gas station, and when Appellant came out to Atkinson’s car, Cpl. Jira detained him and asked his name; Appellant answered by giving his brother’s name. After being told why he was being detained, Appellant stated that what was alleged was hot true; that he did not push Atkinson from the car; and that Atkinson owed his girlfriend approximately $700. When Cpl. Jira confirmed that Appellant had given him the wrong name, he arrested him. No drugs or weapons were found in the car or on Appellant’s person at the time of his arrest.

At trial, the State presented evidence showing that the cause of Atkinson’s death five days after his admission to the hospital was blood clots, which were a consequence of injuries he received when he fell out of a moving vehicle; the evidence included the medical examiner’s testimony, his hospital medical records, and the autopsy report. Specifically, the medical examiner, who performed the autopsy, testified that the cause of death was right pulmonary and bilateral bone thromboembli, or blood clots, due to pelvic, rib, and vertebral fractures. She explained that blood clots were not uncommon when a person has a fracture of the thigh or arm or a pelvic fracture; she also noted that blood clots can take time to develop. She classified the manner of death as a homicide. Additionally, the medical records showed that on the morning of Atkinson’s death, he had developed an altered mental status, which the medical examiner testified can be caused by blood clots. The medical examiner acknowledged that Atkinson did not have rib fractures upon his admission to the hospital, and she opined that he may have sustained the rib fractures as a result of having to be restrained due to his altered mental status or as a result of resuscitation efforts. She also opined that the large blood clot that was visible when she did the autopsy would not have come from the rib fracture because he did not have the rib fracture when he was admitted to the hospital. On cross-examination, she acknowledged that the autopsy did not reveal any injury to Atkinson’s neck.

The State called Johnson and Shivers as witnesses. Johnson’s pretrial interview with Lieutenant John Cross of the Fulton County Police Department was audio- and video-recorded and played for the jury. In that interview, she explained that she was in the car with Atkinson, Appellant, and Simmons late on the evening of January 24, 2012. Atkinson was driving, Appellant was in the passenger seat, and Simmons was sitting behind Appellant. Appellant and Atkinson were having a heated argument about money that Appellant said Atkinson owed him. Atkinson was talking on the phone with Shivers and others, trying to get money. Atkinson said he would drive back to the Skyway, but Appellant said he did not want to go that way. Atkinson did not appear to be afraid and told Appellant that he would get money in the morning.. When Atkinson started to get into a turn lane to turn back toward the Skyway, Appel- lant got angry and grabbed the steering wheel, forcing the car to go in a different direction. At the next intersection, Atkinson slowed the car, opened the door, and rolled out. The car continued moving until it hit a barrier, and Appellant got in the driver’s seat and drove onto I-20. While Atkinson was standing in the intersection, saying "help me, help me," Johnson walked back to the Skyway. Johnson never saw anyone with a gun in the car, although she had seen Appellant with guns in the past.

At trial, Johnson’s testimony about what happened on January 24 was largely consistent with her pretrial statement. However, she testified that Appellant and Atkinson were not having a discussion but were both on their phones and that Atkinson was trying to get money so that he could pay her because she was planning to spend the night with him, and he did not want her...

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex