Collins v. State
326 Ga. App. 181
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Jamal Collins was convicted after a jury trial of armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and possession of an article with an altered identification mark.
- He appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence, failure to order a pretrial psychological evaluation, comment on his co-defendant’s right to remain silent, substitution of a judge for sentencing after the trial judge’s death, alleged lack of discretion in sentencing, and admission of allegedly improper evidence prompting a claim for a new trial.
- The appellate court held there was enough evidence to support the verdict and Collins did not obtain a ruling on the evaluation petition, proceeding to trial without an evaluation, and found no prejudice from the co-defendant comment.
- The substitute judge was necessitated by the death of the trial judge, and the court found no harm from the substitute imposing sentence.
- The sentencing judge’s remarks, viewed in context, did not reflect a lack of discretion or a mechanical formula, and Collins failed to specify any improper evidence for a new-trial claim, leading to affirmance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Collins asserts insufficient evidence. | State contends evidence supports conviction. | Evidence sufficient to sustain verdict |
| Pretrial psychological evaluation preservation | Collins argues failure to obtain evaluation was error. | State contends issue not reviewable absent ruling or objection. | No reviewable error; unpreserved |
| Co-defendant’s right to remain silent comment | Collins claims improper comment entitled mistrial. | State argues no prejudice; denial appropriate. | No abuse of discretion; no prejudice |
| Substitute judge for sentencing | Collins argues substitution and sentencing by substitute judge violated rights. | State asserts substitution permissible and harmless. | Substitution proper; no harm shown |
| Exercise of sentencing discretion | Sentence imposed was based on a mechanical formula. | Judge exercised discretion after considering evidence; not mechanical. | Judicial discretion exercised; not mechanical |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 318 Ga. App. 334 (Ga. App. 2012) (sufficiency standard: view most favorable to the verdict)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court 1979) (sufficiency review framework)
- Fennell v. State, 271 Ga. App. 797 (Ga. App. 2005) (preservation requirement for reviewing trial rulings)
- Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 195 (Ga. 2003) (preservation and review of pretrial issues)
- Dulcio v. State, 292 Ga. 645 (Ga. 2013) (discretionary mistrial and prejudice considerations)
- Mayfield v. State, 220 Ga. App. 19 (Ga. App. 1996) (prejudice standard when reviewing reference to co-defendant)
- McIntyre v. State, 266 Ga. 7 (Ga. 1995) (harmful error analysis for substitution of judges)
- Speed v. State, 270 Ga. 688 (Ga. 1999) (harmless error when substitute judge presides)
- Cottingham v. State, 206 Ga. App. 197 (Ga. App. 1992) (mechanical sentencing formula constitutes lack of discretion)