Case Law Williams v. State

Williams v. State

Document Cited Authorities (15) Cited in (6) Related

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Danielle Patrice Roberts, for Williams.

Tracy Graham Lawson, Elizabeth A. Baker, for The State.

BARNES, Presiding Judge.

Abdu O. Williams appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial following his jury conviction for armed robbery and aggravated assault. Williams contends, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and raises multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon our review, we affirm.

1. “On appeal from a criminal conviction, a defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Goss v. State, 305 Ga.App. 497, 699 S.E.2d 819 (2010).

We neither weigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, but merely ascertain [whether] the evidence is sufficient to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ... As long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the state's case, the jury's verdict will be upheld.

(Citation omitted.) Vaughn v. State, 301 Ga.App. 391, 687 S.E.2d 651 (2009); see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319(III)(B), 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

So viewed, the evidence demonstrates that Williams and the victim were neighbors in a Clayton County apartments complex, and Williams also cut the hair of the victim and his children. On November 26, 2004, Williams was at the victim's home playing video games. As Williams was leaving, he asked the victim for a beer and when the victim turned his back, Williams “started cursing, [and] ... [t]hen he slashed” the victim with a box cutter. Williams said that he wanted money, and the victim gave him $200, but Williams told him that he could not let him go “because you will talk. I've got to kill you.” When Williams started slashing the victim again, the victim called out for help and then fought with Williams until he was able to take the box cutter away from him. Williams ran out of the apartment, and the victim went to a neighbor's house for help. The victim identified Williams as the person who had assaulted and robbed him.

We find the evidence sufficient to sustain Williams' convictions for armed robbery and aggravated assault. The testimony of the victim, standing alone, was sufficient to sustain the convictions. See former OCGA § 24–4–8 (“The testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact.”) The jury, not this Court, “determine[s] the credibility of the witnesses and resolve[s] any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Farris v. State, 290 Ga. 323, 324(1), 720 S.E.2d 604 (2012).

2. Williams also maintains multiple claims of ineffective assistance from his trial counsel. Williams timely filed his motion for new trial on May 11, 2006, and trial counsel had died at some point after filing the motion. His first appellate counsel was appointed on August 8, 2006, and Williams' current attorney was appointed on June 29, 2009.

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, [a criminal defendant] must show counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced him to the point that a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel's errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Matthews v. State, 284 Ga. 819, 821–822(4), 672 S.E.2d 633 (2009). On appeal, we accept the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.” Robinson v. State, 277 Ga. 75, 76, 586 S.E.2d 313 (2003).

(a) Although Williams contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the victim's medical records, the records he appears to complain about are the emergency notes and physical exam procedure notes that were made by the emergency room doctor who treated the victim and who testified at the trial. Williams does not specify why trial counsel should have objected to the documents or present any further argument for this broad and general assertion. Accordingly, as he has failed to support this allegation with argument or authority, it is deemed abandoned. Court of Appeals Rule 25(c)(2); Fields v. State, 281 Ga.App. 733, 738–739(2)(c), 637 S.E.2d 136 (2006), overturned on other grounds, Schofield v. Holsey, 281 Ga. 809, 642 S.E.2d 56 (2007).

(b) Williams also claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to speculative and “irrelevant and prejudicial testimony” about the victim's injuries, but the testimony he appears to complain about is the emergency doctor's testimony about the injury to the victim's neck and its proximity to the carotid artery.

“An expert may give an opinion based upon his own examination, upon his observation, or upon any state of facts, supported by some evidence in the case, which he assumes as true.” (Citation, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Leonard v. State, 269 Ga. 867, 870(3), 506 S.E.2d 853 (1998). Here, the doctor testified from his personal knowledge and testified concerning his medical findings from his examination of the victim in the emergency room. As such, the doctor's testimony was properly admitted, and any objection by trial counsel would have been meritless.

(c) Williams' contention that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure that the voir dire and closing arguments were transcribed is meritless. “The arguments of counsel at trial are not required to be transcribed [, and] [v]oir dire is not required to be transcribed unless the prosecution is seeking the death penalty.” (Citation omitted.) Dunlap v. State, 291 Ga. 51, 53(3), 727 S.E.2d 468 (2012). Thus, trial counsel was not ineffective on this basis.

(d) Williams contends that trial counsel failed to submit appropriate jury instructions, failed to investigate the viability of a post-conviction attack of his prior felonies, and did not advise him of his right to attack his prior felony sentences. He does not, however, provide any record citations, argument, or legal authority for these assertions. [Williams'] speculation that error may have occurred is insufficient to show any deficiency on the part of counsel, or prejudice therefore, and is insufficient to show reversible error.” Id. Moreover, allegations that are not supported with argument or authority are deemed abandoned. Court of Appeals Rule 25(c)(2); Fields v. State, 281 Ga.App. at 738–739(2)(c), 637 S.E.2d 136.

3. At his sentencing hearing, the State introduced for purposes of recidivist punishment, see OCGA § 17–10–7, three certified copies of guilty pleas Williams had entered to felonies in Mitchell County. Williams did not object to the admission of the guilty pleas. On appeal, he complains that following his guilty plea, the trial court did not apprise him of his right to pursue post-conviction relief, and that the trial counsel who represented him during his plea was ineffective because he did not advise Williams of the right to appeal his...

3 cases
Document | Georgia Court of Appeals – 2016
Wiggins v. State
"...her arguments as to these objections must be deemed abandoned. See Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2) ; Williams v. State , 323 Ga.App. 88, 89 (2) (a), 746 S.E.2d 913 (2013).9 Although the trial court did not specifically rule on the invocation of the marital privilege, it denied Wiggins' obj..."
Document | Georgia Court of Appeals – 2015
Curtis v. State
"...and voir dire be reported does not constitute a basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Williams v. State, 323 Ga.App. 88, 90(2)(c), 746 S.E.2d 913 (2013) ; see also Dunlap v. State, 291 Ga. 51, 53(3), 727 S.E.2d 468 (2012) (defendant's speculation that error may have occu..."
Document | Georgia Court of Appeals – 2013
Thompson v. Lafarge Bldg. Materials, Inc.
"... ...         [746 S.E.2d 909]Blake Robert Carl, Hylton B. Dupree, Jr., Marietta, for Larry B. Thompson.John Allen Williams, Scott Alan Schweber, Atlanta, for LaFarge Building Materials, Inc.DOYLE, Presiding Judge.        [323 Ga.App. 276]LaFarge Building ... But under the particular circumstances of this case, I would hold that the guaranty satisfies the Statute of Frauds.I am authorized to state that Judge BRANCH joins in this dissent.--------Notes:        1.Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp., 226 Ga.App. 459(1), 486 S.E.2d 684 ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

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
3 cases
Document | Georgia Court of Appeals – 2016
Wiggins v. State
"...her arguments as to these objections must be deemed abandoned. See Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2) ; Williams v. State , 323 Ga.App. 88, 89 (2) (a), 746 S.E.2d 913 (2013).9 Although the trial court did not specifically rule on the invocation of the marital privilege, it denied Wiggins' obj..."
Document | Georgia Court of Appeals – 2015
Curtis v. State
"...and voir dire be reported does not constitute a basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Williams v. State, 323 Ga.App. 88, 90(2)(c), 746 S.E.2d 913 (2013) ; see also Dunlap v. State, 291 Ga. 51, 53(3), 727 S.E.2d 468 (2012) (defendant's speculation that error may have occu..."
Document | Georgia Court of Appeals – 2013
Thompson v. Lafarge Bldg. Materials, Inc.
"... ...         [746 S.E.2d 909]Blake Robert Carl, Hylton B. Dupree, Jr., Marietta, for Larry B. Thompson.John Allen Williams, Scott Alan Schweber, Atlanta, for LaFarge Building Materials, Inc.DOYLE, Presiding Judge.        [323 Ga.App. 276]LaFarge Building ... But under the particular circumstances of this case, I would hold that the guaranty satisfies the Statute of Frauds.I am authorized to state that Judge BRANCH joins in this dissent.--------Notes:        1.Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp., 226 Ga.App. 459(1), 486 S.E.2d 684 ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

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