Battle v. State, 298 Ga. 661

On Aug. 30, 2009, Maurice Battle and accomplices robbed a convenience store; Battle shot and killed store manager Dipak Patel and held others at gunpoint. Surveillance video and witnesses implicated Battle.
Battle was indicted (Apr. 2010); the State initially sought the death penalty (May 2010). Co-defendants pled and testified against Battle at his July 2012 trial; Battle was convicted and sentenced to life without parole.
While jailed, an inmate (Frederick Edwards) told his attorney of alleged papers from Battle describing a plot to kill Judge Ennis, prosecutors, the lead detective, and another target; those papers were given to the DA’s office.
A GBI handwriting examiner could not positively identify Battle as the author of the papers; the investigator concluded the plot allegations were not clearly credible and conspiracy-to-murder charges were later dropped for lack of evidence.
Battle did not file a timely motion to recuse Judge Ennis after learning of the alleged plot (knowledge existed by Nov. 2010); defense counsel instead sought disqualification of the DA’s office, which led the State to withdraw its death-penalty notice.
After conviction, Battle raised (1) insufficiency of the evidence, (2) that the judge should have recused himself sua sponte on learning of the alleged plot, and (3) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to file a timely recusal motion. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions	Battle: evidence was vague/ambiguous and identifications conflicted	State: surveillance, accomplice IDs, gun recovered and forensics, incriminating statements supported convictions	Court: Evidence, viewed in favor of verdict, was sufficient to sustain convictions (Jackson standard)
Judge sua sponte recusal after learning of alleged death-plot	Battle: judge learned of plot and therefore should have recused himself without a motion	State: no timely recusal motion filed; plot was not shown to be credible or extraordinary	Court: Battle forfeited claim by failing to file timely motion; even on merits recusal not required because plot lacked credibility/seriousness
Timeliness/forfeiture of recusal claim	Battle: raised recusal issue after trial and sentencing	State: recusal motions must be filed promptly; Battle knew of plot in 2010 but waited	Court: claim forfeited—prompt filing rule bars late challenge; allowing late objections would encourage gamesmanship
Ineffective assistance for not moving to recuse	Battle: counsel was deficient for not filing timely recusal motion	State: lead counsel made a strategic, researched decision to pursue DA disqualification to avoid death penalty; recusal likely would have failed and outcome wouldn’t differ	Court: counsel’s decision was a reasonable strategy; no deficient performance and no Strickland prejudice shown

Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32 (acknowledging jury resolves credibility conflicts)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (evidence sufficient if rational trier could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
Post v. State, 298 Ga. 241 (timeliness requirement for recusal motions)
In re Adams, 292 Ga. 617 (forfeiture of recusal claims raised late)
State v. Hargis, 294 Ga. 818 (party who knowingly declines to seek recusal cannot reserve the issue for appeal)
In re Basciano, 542 F.3d 950 (threats against judges do not ordinarily mandate recusal)
United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909 (recusal not required for uncredible threats; allowing otherwise invites manipulation)
United States v. Greenspan, 26 F.3d 1001 (outlier holding recusal required where credible interstate conspiracy to kill judge existed)
United States v. Yu-Leung, 51 F.3d 1116 (no error when judge did not treat threats as serious)
Schutt v. State, 292 Ga. 625 (trial tactics and strategy not ineffective unless patently unreasonable)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective assistance standard)
Long v. State, 287 Ga. 886 (applying Strickland in Georgia)