Dickerson v. State
312 Ga. App. 320
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In September 2004, a jury found Dickerson guilty of trafficking in cocaine and sentenced him to life without parole.
- Dickerson timely moved for a new trial and to modify his sentence; the court resentenced him in October 2010 to 40 years to serve 20 and denied the new-trial motion in November 2010.
- A confidential informant alleged Dickerson sold crack cocaine from a house, leading to a search warrant for the Metropolitan Avenue residence.
- Police found James Riley and Frenchie Lemon at the home; a drug dog found 83 grams of cocaine in the basement; Lemon testified Dickerson used the nickname 'Doc' and supplied the drugs.
- The trial court admitted evidence of four similar transactions by Dickerson; two were convictions, two were proven through police testimony.
- Dickerson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, trial counsel’s effectiveness, and the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, but the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Dickerson argues Lemon’s uncorroborated testimony is insufficient alone. | State contends corroborating evidence connected Dickerson to the drugs. | Sufficient corroboration supported Lemon’s testimony. |
| Access to the drugs and possession | Others had equal access, negating possession. | Ownership or control of premises creates a presumption of possession; jury can decide. | Presumption not overcome; jury weighed evidence; no error. |
| Admission of similar transactions | Similar transactions were improperly admitted. | Evidence satisfied the three-prong test for similar-transaction admissibility. | Admission upheld; factors for admission satisfied. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to suppress | Counsel should have moved to suppress based on probable-cause issues. | No likelihood of success; motion would have failed. | Counsel not ineffective; no reasonable probability of different outcome. |
| Failure to instruct on accomplice corroboration | Trial counsel should have requested a jury charge on corroboration of accomplice testimony. | Corroboration existed; charge unnecessary. | No error; corroboration present and charge not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbard v. State, 274 Ga. App. 184 (Ga. App. 2005) (standard of appellate review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard for conviction)
- Johnson v. State, 288 Ga. 803 (Ga. 2011) (corroboration requirements for accomplice testimony)
- Sullivan v. State, 284 Ga. 358 (Ga. 2008) (ineffective-assistance standard; strong showing required)
- Hinely v. State, 275 Ga. 777 (Ga. 2002) (accomplice corroboration charge when requested)
- McKibbons v. State, 226 Ga. App. 452 (Ga. App. 1997) (test for similar-transaction evidence)