Anderson v. the State
337 Ga. App. 739
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Charles Anderson was convicted by a Cobb County jury of armed robbery; sentenced as a recidivist to life without parole based on three prior felony convictions.
- Facts: Anderson drove with his nephew (Hicks) and two others to a Waffle House; two masked men (identified by witnesses as Anderson and Eason) robbed the restaurant at gunpoint; the group fled in Plummer’s car.
- After the robbery Anderson called Plummer and later called Hicks from jail; recorded jail calls were played at trial in which Anderson questioned/admonished Hicks about what Hicks told police.
- Hicks testified that he did not participate in the robbery, identified Anderson as a participant, and said Anderson told him to claim the car was stolen.
- At sentencing the State introduced certified copies of three prior convictions, including a 1991 Michigan nolo contendere plea to armed robbery (juvenile at time); trial court used these for OCGA § 17-10-7 recidivist sentencing.
- Anderson moved for new trial raising (1) improper admission of recorded jail calls, (2) improper recidivist sentence based on the Michigan juvenile conviction, and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the trial court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Anderson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of recorded jail phone calls | Calls were prejudicial and only showed bad character; probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice | Calls were party admissions and showed consciousness of guilt and corroborated Hicks; admissible | Admissible: relevant to consciousness of guilt and corroboration; OCGA §§ 24-4-401, 24-4-403 did not require exclusion |
| Use of Michigan juvenile nolo contendere plea as predicate for recidivist sentencing (OCGA § 17-10-7) | Because plea was entered when Anderson was under 17 (juvenile), it cannot be used as a prior felony for recidivist sentencing | The Michigan offense (armed robbery with a gun) would have been a felony in Georgia and superior court had concurrent jurisdiction over juvenile acts punishable by life | Held: admissible as a predicate conviction — conduct would have been a felony in Georgia, so meets § 17-10-7 requirements |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel: failure to object to Michigan conviction | Counsel deficient for not objecting to use of Michigan conviction | Objection would have been meritless because conviction was a valid predicate; no deficiency | No ineffective assistance — failure to raise meritless objection is not deficient |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel: failure to call/subpoena eyewitnesses and cross-examination choices (detective testimony) | Counsel was deficient for not subpoenaing eyewitnesses and for eliciting/ failing to strike detective testimony that bolstered Hicks | Counsel investigated witness statements and reasonably decided witnesses would not help; detective’s testimony did not impermissibly vouch; tactical decisions are within strategy | Held: No ineffective assistance. Trial strategy re witnesses and cross-exam was reasonable; detective’s answer did not impermissibly bolster credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 283 Ga. App. 812 (2017) (relevance of evidence not defeated because it incidentally raises character)
- State v. Jones, 297 Ga. 156 (2015) (definition of relevance under Georgia evidence code)
- Williams v. State, 328 Ga. App. 876 (2014) (preference for admissibility; OCGA § 24-4-403 applied sparingly)
- Bostic v. State, 294 Ga. 845 (2014) (statements showing consciousness of guilt admissible)
- Moore v. State, 276 Ga. App. 55 (2005) (juvenile’s prior armed robbery may be used for recidivist sentencing where Georgia superior court would have had jurisdiction)
- Brannon v. State, 298 Ga. 601 (2016) (Strickland standard for ineffective assistance)