Gray v. State, 309 Ga. 850

Jan. 14, 2012: Ferderian Bennett was shot outside an Atlanta club. Roshun Gray was later indicted for malice murder and related firearm offenses; convicted at a June 2015 trial and sentenced to life plus consecutive firearm terms.
Eyewitnesses placed Gray at the shooting and saw him fire; post-incident statements and a text message suggested Gray acted to protect an associate; no weapon was recovered from the victim.
Gray filed an amended motion for new trial (2017–2018) alleging he was legally incompetent at trial and that trial counsel failed to investigate incompetency; an evidentiary hearing was held in May 2019.
Defense expert Dr. Jamie Dickson evaluated Gray, reported a full-scale IQ of 47, diagnosed schizophrenia and moderate intellectual disability, and opined Gray likely could not understand proceedings or assist counsel.
State expert Dr. Glenn Egan concluded Gray was malingering and competent; trial counsel and prosecutors testified Gray communicated about the case and showed no signs of incompetence; jail/prison records and recorded phone calls showed coherent legal discussions.
The trial court denied the motion for new trial; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding Gray failed to prove incompetency by a preponderance and failed to show prejudice from any alleged failure to investigate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gray was legally incompetent at the time of trial (due process)	Gray: IQ tests and Dr. Dickson’s evaluation show severe cognitive impairment and psychosis; he could not understand proceedings or assist counsel.	State: Expert evidence, counsel/prosecutor observations, jail/prison records, and recorded calls show Gray understood proceedings and assisted; evidence of malingering undermines defense expert.	Court: Affirmed — Gray failed to prove incompetency by a preponderance; a rational factfinder could credit State’s evidence.
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate incompetency	Gray: Citronberg did not obtain records or pursue competency evaluation despite mother’s reports of lifelong deficits, causing prejudice.	State: Any competent investigation would have produced the same evidence presented at the motion hearing, which was insufficient to show incompetency; no reasonable probability of a different outcome.	Court: Affirmed — Gray failed to show prejudice; no reasonable probability an investigation would have led to a finding of incompetency.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance framework: performance and prejudice)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigating/defense evidence under Strickland)
Sims v. State, 279 Ga. 389 (competency standard; low IQ is an indicium but not dispositive)
Humphrey v. Walker, 294 Ga. 855 (due-process bar to convicting the incompetent)
Traylor v. State, 280 Ga. 400 (burden on defendant, first raised in motion for new trial, to prove incompetency by preponderance)
Tye v. State, 298 Ga. 474 (trial court as factfinder may resolve conflicting expert competency testimony)
Scott v. State, 301 Ga. 573 (prejudice inquiry requires proffering evidence counsel would have produced)
Martin v. Barrett, 279 Ga. 593 (same; speculative prejudice defeats IAC claims)
Slaughter v. State, 292 Ga. 573 (supports standard that defendant must prove incompetency by preponderance)