Entwisle v. the State
340 Ga. App. 122
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In April–May 2013, multiple homes were burglarized; victims reported missing jewelry, a laptop, a gun, financial records, and items bearing identifying marks. Pry marks and a broken window/lock were found at one residence. Police later located Entwisle hiding in a dilapidated Payne Road house where stolen property and a crowbar consistent with the window pry marks were recovered.
- Carbonite (an online backup) showed Hizer’s stolen laptop was accessed the day after theft; those Carbonite records included IP addresses tied to a motel room rented by Entwisle’s girlfriend Rowland and an email account referencing Entwisle.
- Entwisle was tried by jury and convicted of first- and second-degree burglary, criminal trespass, multiple theft counts, theft by receiving, computer invasion of privacy, and felon-in-possession; he moved for a new trial which the court denied; he appealed.
- On appeal Entwisle raised ineffective-assistance claims (attack on counsel’s suppression strategy and failure to object to hearsay), asserted improper admission of prior bad-act evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404/403, and challenged sufficiency of evidence for first-degree burglary of McCrary’s home.
- The court found counsel’s suppression strategy not objectively unreasonable given assertions in the suppression motion and facts about the Payne Road property, but found counsel ineffective for failing to object to hearsay testimony underlying the computer-invasion conviction (Hizer’s testimony about Carbonite).
Issues
| Issue | Entwisle's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — failure to press suppression (Payne Rd house) | Counsel should have argued Entwisle had a privacy interest (guest/worker) and sought suppression | Counsel legitimately limited suppression argument given Entwisle’s own pleadings denying residence; entry may have been justified by exigent circumstances | Not ineffective; counsel’s strategy was reasonable under circumstances and not patently unreasonable |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to hearsay (Carbonite/Hizer) | Counsel should have objected to Hizer’s testimony about Carbonite access; it was hearsay and the sole proof of computer invasion | Hizer’s testimony was offered to explain her actions and investigation leads (State relied on it to connect Entwisle) | Counsel was ineffective; failure to object deprived Entwisle of sufficient evidence on computer-invasion charge; conviction reversed as to that count |
| Admission of prior bad acts under OCGA § 24-4-404/403 | Trial court admitted prior-act evidence without explicit balancing under Rule 403; admission prejudiced Entwisle | Trial court referenced the Rule 403 test; evidence admissible for non-character purposes and not unfairly prejudicial; any error harmless given strong proof | No reversible error: appellant failed to identify specific rulings; trial court implicitly performed balancing; admission not shown to be abusive or prejudicial |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree burglary (McCrary) | State failed to prove entry — victim testified glass was broken but assailant didn’t get into house | Physical trail of stolen items from woods to workshop, broken glass, sworn evidence that defendant retrieved items from workshop support entry beyond merely breaking window | Evidence sufficient: jury could infer defendant broke the plane of structure with intent to steal; conviction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Serritt v. State, 261 Ga. App. 344 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (standard for viewing evidence in support of a verdict)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (appellate sufficiency standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- Allen v. State, 296 Ga. 785 (Ga. 2015) (deference to trial-court factual findings in ineffective-assistance review)
- Meadows v. State, 264 Ga. App. 160 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) ("breaking the plane" doctrine for burglary entry)