Bundel v. State
308 Ga. 317
Ga.2020Background:
- On November 26, 2011, George Tabetando was shot and killed in a Cumberland Mall parking lot after meeting Rosano Wensly Bundel in connection with an alleged scam.
- Witnesses testified that Bundel chased and shot Tabetando multiple times while Tabetando was running and unarmed; medical evidence showed a femoral artery wound caused death.
- Crime-scene evidence recovered .40-caliber rounds and a shell casing; matching .40-caliber ammunition was later found at Bundel’s residence; Sieni identified Bundel as the shooter.
- Bundel testified, claiming self-defense — he said Tabetando pulled a gun, took his money, threatened his family, and he fired after a struggle; other witnesses denied seeing a gun on Tabetando.
- Bundel was indicted in March 2012 and convicted in May 2012 of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; he was sentenced to life without parole plus five years; the felony-murder count was vacated and aggravated assault merged.
- Bundel filed a motion for new trial (general grounds) in June 2012; the trial court delayed scheduling a hearing pending the transcript and a particularized motion, the transcript filed in 2015, Bundel never filed the particularized motion or affirmatively requested a hearing, and the court denied the motion in April 2019; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bundel) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the weight of the evidence/general grounds warrant a new trial | Verdict was against the weight of the evidence; trial court should have granted new trial under OCGA §§ 5-5-20, 5-5-21 | Evidence was sufficient; denying new trial on general grounds is discretionary to trial court and not reviewed on appeal — appellate review is sufficiency-only | Affirmed: under Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency standard, evidence was sufficient to support convictions |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying the motion for new trial without a hearing | Bundel contends he effectively requested a hearing by asking that his motion be “inquired into” | The trial court reasonably required an affirmative, particularized request; Bundel never filed the particularized motion or otherwise affirmatively sought a hearing | Affirmed: no error — defendant waived hearing by failing to request one or file a particularized motion; no hearing required for general-grounds review |
Key Cases Cited
- 443 U.S. 307 (Jackson v. Virginia) (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- 306 Ga. 795 (State v. Denson) (discretion to grant or deny new trial on general grounds rests with trial court)
- 305 Ga. 838 (Strother v. State) (appellate review of denied general-grounds new-trial motion limited to Jackson sufficiency review)
- 303 Ga. 110 (Dent v. State) (applies Jackson standard in Georgia appellate review)
- 285 Ga. 676 (Mangrum v. State) (defendant must affirmatively request an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial)
- 277 Ga. 195 (Wilson v. State) (right to hearing on motion for new trial is waived if not requested)
- 303 Ga. 254 (Owens v. State) (addresses delays in resolving post-conviction motions and instructs courts to address the problem)
- 298 Ga. 90 (State v. Cash) (general-grounds new-trial review is limited to the trial record)
- 292 Ga. 262 (Walker v. State) (discusses evaluation of credibility and conflicts under general grounds)
- 249 Ga. App. 881 (Cooper v. State) (addresses scheduling of hearings on motions for new trial)