CARPENTER v. the STATE.
343 Ga. App. 355
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On March 29, 2012, a man with sunglasses and a hat entered a dry-cleaning store, displayed a gun, ordered the victim to get in his car, and left; the victim photographed the suspect’s Toyota 4Runner (plate too blurry).
- The victim and a customer each tentatively identified photograph number two in a police photo lineup as the male who entered the store; Carpenter’s photo occupied position two.
- Investigators matched the vehicle to a Toyota 4Runner registered to William Lawrence Carpenter, found decal remnants and adhesive/placards in the vehicle, and cell tower records placed one of Carpenter’s phones near the scene shortly before the incident.
- Carpenter was indicted and convicted by a jury of aggravated assault, criminal attempt to commit kidnapping, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. His motion for new trial was denied.
- On appeal, Carpenter challenged (1) the in-court identification, (2) trial counsel’s effectiveness for not objecting to that identification, and (3) merger of convictions/sentences for related offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/in-court identification | Carpenter argued the victim should not have been allowed to identify him in court | State: the victim only repeated that photo number two (Carpenter) was in the courtroom; lineup admission not challenged | Court: No error — identification testimony merely confirmed that photo #2 in the lineup was Carpenter and that fact was undisputed |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to in-court ID | Carpenter argued counsel was deficient for failing to object to the in-court ID | State: any objection would be meritless because the ID only linked photo #2 to Carpenter and the lineup itself was not challenged | Court: No ineffective assistance — failure to make a meritless objection is not deficient performance (Strickland not met) |
| Whether aggravated assault merges with attempt to commit kidnapping | Carpenter argued the convictions should merge because they arose from same conduct | State: the crimes have distinct required evidence elements | Court: No merger — each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not (required-evidence test) |
| Whether the two firearm-possession counts should merge | Carpenter argued both firearm counts should merge into one | State: multiple convictions allowed only when separate victim(s) or separate crimes; here same continuous offense and same victim | Court: Merge required — vacate one firearm conviction and remand for resentencing (only one firearm-possession conviction per victim/continuous course of conduct) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance framework: performance and prejudice)
- Drinkard v. Walker, 281 Ga. 211 (adopts the required-evidence test for merger of crimes)
- Abdullah v. State, 284 Ga. 399 (one firearm-possession conviction per victim/continuous spree rule)
- Hall v. State, 335 Ga. App. 895 (cited for standard of appellate review in criminal cases)
- Winfrey v. State, 286 Ga. App. 718 (failure to make meritless motion is not ineffective assistance)
- Wesley v. State, 286 Ga. 355 (discussion of meritless motions and counsel performance)
- Middlebrooks v. State, 289 Ga. App. 91 (application of required-evidence test to distinguish offenses)
- Williams v. State, 277 Ga. 368 (remanding for resentencing when merger applies)