Womack v. State

317 Ga.App. 496

731 S.E.2d 387

WOMACK

v.The STATE.

No. A12A0961.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Aug. 29, 2012.

Bruce Steven Harvey, Jennifer Sullivan Hanson, for appellant.

Daniel J. Porter, Dist. Atty., Teresa B. Klein, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

DILLARD, Judge.

Following a trial by jury, Tyrone Womack was convicted of two counts of rape, two counts of false imprisonment, one count of criminal attempt to commit aggravated sodomy, one count of aggravated sodomy, and two counts of aggravated assault. Womack appeals these convictions, arguing that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to obtain a pre-trial psychiatric evaluation, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress pornographic videos which were not linked to the crimes for which Womack was indicted and seized using an insufficient search warrant, and (3) the trial court erred by allowing testimony summarizing the contents of the pornographic videos seized. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's guilty verdict,¹ the record reflects that Womack committed horrific acts of violence against two separate women in 2008 and was subsequently indicted on a score of charges related to these attacks.

Womack's first victim was walking home late one evening in January when Womack stopped and asked if she would like a ride. Once she was in his vehicle, Womack questioned the woman as to what she would do to make some money, at which point she offered to perform sexual acts. When the two reached a secluded area, the woman demanded to be paid up front, but Womack refused, punched the victim, and instructed that she would do exactly what she was told to do.

From that point on, Womack's first victim was subjected to a vicious attack that lasted hours and took place in various locations as Womack drove his van from DeKalb County to Gwinnett County.² Womack vaginally raped her after attempting anal sodomy. At times the victim's hands were bound by the laces from her shoes, and Womack told her about his indecision as to what he should do with her, suggesting at some points that he should take her "into the woods"—which the victim understood to mean that she would be killed—or suggesting that he should take her home to become his slave. Instead, Womack eventually released the victim in a grocery store parking lot at 4:00 a.m., and she immediately notified law enforcement about her attack.

Womack was not apprehended until some six months later when his second victim escaped after days of torture. Like the first victim, Womack picked up the second victim by offering her a ride to the store. But rather than going to the store, after the victim accepted the ride, Womack continued to drive and invited the victim to accompany him to use illegal drugs after she asked where they were going. The victim became frightened the further Womack drove but agreed to get high with him nevertheless.

The two eventually arrived at the home of Womack's parents, where he lived in the basement, and as he escorted the victim down to his room, he said, "Welcome to the dungeon." Then, as the victim prepared to use drugs with Womack, he punched her in the face, instructed that she would do as she was told, informed her that she would be staying for "a while," and demanded that she disrobe. Womack threatened that he would not kill her, only make her wish that she was dead, and said that he would hurt her if she did not do as instructed. The victim's hands were then bound with a ripped bed sheet, and she was anally sodomized and vaginally raped as Womack cut her across the buttocks, back, shoulders, and thighs with a serrated knife and punched her in the head with each scream. Womack also burned the victim with lit cigarettes after asking if she had any weapons in her purse, finding a razor blade inside, and instructing her that because she did not tell him about the razor blade, she could choose to be cut with the blade or burned with cigarettes.

The victim was assaulted and hidden in Womack's "dungeon" for two days. Womack first tried to hide her in a crawl space but then attempted to hide her beneath his bed. To do so, he forced the victim to move sixteen two-liter bottles filled with urine, which were hidden under the bed and which he explained had been used by a previous prisoner. But when the victim still could not fit beneath the bed, Womack hid her behind boxes in a corner. At one point, the victim heard Womack's mother come into the basement and ask whether he was "hiding any hoes in here," but the victim did not cry out because Womack had previously warned that she would "be sorry" if she asked for assistance.

The victim's ordeal finally ended when she awoke in the corner and believed herself to be alone. Despite prior warnings by Womack that he might try to trick her into escaping, the victim left the corner clad in only a sheet, made her way to the garage door, and fled to a neighboring house for help. From there, law enforcement was notified, Womack's vehicle was matched to a description by the first victim, and Womack was eventually taken into custody. Although Womack contended to law enforcement and at trial that both victims consented to the acts performed, he was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape,³ two counts of false imprisonment,⁴ one count of criminal attempt to commit aggravated sodomy,⁵ one count of aggravated sodomy,⁶ and two counts of aggravated assault.⁷ This appeal follows.

At the outset, we note that on appeal of Womack's criminal convictions, "we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, and [Womack] no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence."⁸ And we neither weigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility, "which are tasks that fall within the exclusive province of the jury."⁹ With these guiding principles in mind, we turn now to Womack's enumerations of error.

1. Womack first argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to obtain a pre-trial psychiatric evaluation regarding his competency and level of criminal responsibility at the time of the offenses. We disagree.

When reviewing such a claim, "we accept the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts."¹⁰ In order to prevail on this enumeration, Womack carries the burden of "establishing that his trial defense counsel's performance was deficient and the deficient performance prejudiced his defense."¹¹ Additionally, he must show that there was a "reasonable probability the result of his trial would have been different but for his defense counsel's unprofessional deficiencies."¹² Womack has failed to meet this burden.

At the motion-for-new-trial hearing, Womack presented the testimony of two medical experts who reviewed his prior medical history (which included a 2006 diagnosis of a lesion on his brain), and who evaluated him after trial and some three years after he was first incarcerated. Those experts expressed serious reservations regarding Womack's competency to stand trial, his intelligence, and his mental health. But the State presented the testimony of Womack's trial counsel and a psychologist who evaluated Womack prior to trial at the request of the court after Womack had an outburst during a bond hearing.

The psychologist who evaluated Womack prior to trial was aware of Womack's prior diagnosis, observed no real issues with Womack, did not see sufficient evidence to deem Womack incompetent or to question his criminal responsibility, and felt that Womack could assist in his defense. As for Womack's trial counsel, he testified that he was appointed after Womack had been deemed competent by the court-ordered pre-trial evaluation, that he understood the conclusions of that evaluation, and that he was aware of Womack's medical history. Trial counsel also observed that Womack had a good memory of the events at issue; was lucid, coherent, able to communicate, and capable of testifying; and was intelligent and involved in the trial by taking notes, helping to locate witnesses, and providing feedback after witnesses testified. In short, trial counsel testified that nothing made him question the determination that Womack was competent to stand trial or made him question Womack's level of criminal responsibility.

When the trial court denied Womack's motion on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court remarked that Womack was fully engaged during the trial and that his claim was unsupported by evidence. Given the foregoing, the trial court's denial of Womack's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was not clearly erroneous.¹³ Accordingly, this enumeration of error is wholly without merit.

2. Womack next argues that the trial court erred by allowing the State to show the jury two clips of pornography depicting rape because the evidence was not linked to the crimes indicted and was seized using an insufficient warrant. We disagree.

The record reflects that when Womack was interviewed by law enforcement, he disclosed that he "had rape related pornography stored on DVD–Rs in his bedroom," and this information was included in the officer affidavit attached to the application for a search warrant. Thereafter, law enforcement obtained a search warrant to collect this pornography. And pursuant to this search warrant, officers recovered hundreds of DVDs containing more than 5,500 pornographic videos, over 1,500 of which depicted rape and/or bondage. At trial, the State admitted into evidence a hard drive containing 773 of the rape/bondage videos and played for the jury two representative videos depicting violent rape.¹⁴ Womack objected to admission of the evidence on the same grounds enumerated on appeal.

(a) As to the first argument, that the evidence was not linked to the crime charged in the indictment, this contention is without merit....