Barney v. the State
333 Ga. App. 807
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Barney was convicted by Emanuel County jury of two burglary counts in 2010.
- Maria Smith and Marcus Sherrod testified to burglaries at adjacent homes; investigators collected photos and statements.
- Jonathan Smith and Travoski Harris testified; Harris treated as hostile; Harris admitted involvement under coercive questioning.
- Barney disputed guilt; he challenged the lack of accomplice corroboration instruction and the re-sentencing under OCGA § 17-10-7.
- The trial court later re-sentenced Barney, but issues remained regarding voidness and discretion to suspend portions of the sentence.
- Appellate court affirmed conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for re-sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there plain error for omitting accomplice corroboration instruction? | Barney contends corroboration must be charged when only accomplice evidence supports guilt. | State relied on other corroborating evidence beyond the accomplice testimony; no plain error. | No plain error; corroboration sufficient from other evidence cited. |
| Is the evidence sufficient where accomplice testimony is uncorroborated? | Accomplice testimony alone insufficient to convict. | There is corroboration from Harris and other circumstantial proof linking Barney to the crimes. | Evidence corroborates accomplice testimony; conviction supported. |
| Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance by not seeking an accomplice-liability charge or by cross-examining on plea deals? | Counsel should have pursued accomplice-liability instruction and probed plea terms. | Counsel's strategic choices were reasonable; no prejudice shown by lack of cross-examination. | No ineffective-assistance shown; decisions within trial strategy. |
| Was Barney's original sentence void and could the court re-sentence accordingly? | Original sentence could be corrected; court had discretion to suspend or probate part of sentence. | Original sentence not void for discretionary reasons; misinterpretation of text. | Original sentence void under OCGA § 17-10-7; remand for proper re-sentencing with discretion exercised on record. |
| Did the trial court properly exercise discretion at re-sentencing? | Court should sentence to maximum without parole per statute. | Court failed to show discretionary probate/suspension; misapplied discretion. | Remand for re-sentencing with explicit exercise of discretion; sustain amended sentence consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 321 Ga. App. 198 (2013) (corroboration when other evidence supports accomplice testimony)
- Lane v. State, 324 Ga. App. 303 (2013) (corroboration may be circumstantial; need not alone convict)
- Sims v. State, 306 Ga. App. 68 (2010) (corroboration need only connect defendant to crime)
- Crawford v. State, 294 Ga. 898 (2014) (jury determines whether evidence corroborates accomplice testimony)
- Jefferson v. State, 309 Ga. App. 861 (2011) (read together subsections of 17-10-7; prior cases on void/resentencing)
- Hill v. State, 272 Ga. App. 280 (2005) (correction of sentences to comply with statute)
- Banks v. State, 225 Ga. App. 754 (1997) (trial court discretion to probate/suspend portion of sentence; error not harmless)
- Bonner v. State, 308 Ga. App. 827 (2011) (cross-examination of co-defendant about plea terms is tactical)
- Sears v. State, 292 Ga. 64 (2012) (cross-examination of co-defendant's statements; prejudice standards)
- Page v. State, 287 Ga. App. 182 (2007) (record must reflect discretionary sentencing choices)
- White v. State, 308 Ga. App. 38 (2011) (appellate review of trial court factual findings and credibility determinations)
- Styles v. State, 329 Ga. App. 143 (2014) (trial strategy defense decisions generally not ineffective assistance)