Garland v. State
311 Ga. App. 7
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- On December 10, 2003, two intruders broke into a home, demanded drugs, and used a gun to strike the homeowner; the homeowner shot the intruder and the pair fled empty-handed.
- Three men were indicted; Stahl pled guilty to several charges in exchange for testifying, and testified that Garland's brother and Garland planned and helped cover up the attempted marijuana heist; Garland did not testify.
- Garland was convicted on five counts; after merging some counts, he was sentenced for burglary, attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, and attempted possession of marijuana.
- This court affirmed the judgment, but the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the portion addressing appointment of conflict-free appellate counsel, remanding for consideration of ineffective assistance with new counsel.
- On remand, Garland was appointed new counsel, filed an amended motion for new trial, and the trial court denied relief; the issue on appeal concerns trial counsel’s effectiveness and related trial errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge instruction error | Garland argues the pattern knowledge charge misstated law by conjunctive phrasing. | State contends the charge, read as a whole, correctly stated the burden and the separate consideration of counts. | No reversible error; the final charge adequately instructed beyond reasonable doubt and separation of counts. |
| Accomplice testimony OCGA 17-8-57 | Garland argues trial counsel should have objected to a portion of the accomplice instruction violating OCGA 17-8-57. | State contends any technical violation was corrected by curative instructions and that the pattern instruction was proper. | No deficient performance; curative instructions and the overall charge cured potential error. |
| Impeachment by prior felony conviction | Garland asserts trial counsel should have objected to refusing a jury instruction on impeachment by prior felony conviction for Stahl. | State reasons that the witness’s many prior felonies and plea deal provided enough impeachment context; instruction not required. | No prejudicial error; given Stahl’s prior convictions and plea deal, the jury was adequately informed. |
| Merger of aggravated assault into attempted armed robbery | Garland contends aggravated assault should not merge with attempted armed robbery under OCGA 16-1-6. | State argues the offenses are distinct with overlapping elements that may still require merger under the test. | Aggravated assault should have merged into the attempted armed robbery; convictions and sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eckman v. State, 274 Ga. 63 (2001) (pattern jury charge; no reversible error where charge considered as a whole)
- Sedlak v. State, 275 Ga. 746 (2002) (OCGA § 17-8-57 review; technical violation may be cured by instructions)
- Patel v. State, 282 Ga. 412 (2007) (curative instruction sufficiency where accomplice evidence presented)
- Berry v. State, 267 Ga. 476 (1997) (pattern jury instructions; individual consideration of charges vs. joint references)
- Hinely v. State, 275 Ga. 777 (2002) (impeachment and evidence considerations; strategy can justify not impeaching with conviction)
- Long v. State, 287 Ga. 886 (2010) (no element of aggravated assault with deadly weapon beyond those in armed robbery)
- Drinkard v. Walker, 286 Ga. 722 (2010) (required evidence test for inclusion; merger framework context)