Hendrix v. State
298 Ga. 60
| Ga. | 2015Background
- On Oct. 6, 2011, Sylvester Hendrix got into an altercation at a DeKalb County car wash with victim Dujon Parker; Hendrix left and returned armed, a struggle occurred, and Parker was shot twice and died.
- Four eyewitnesses (three previously acquainted with Hendrix) identified Hendrix in a photographic lineup; several testified Parker was unarmed.
- Two eyewitnesses reported post-shooting phone calls from Hendrix attempting to discourage cooperation; one witness recanted that claim at trial.
- Hendrix was indicted on malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; a jury convicted on all counts and the court imposed life without parole plus five years.
- Hendrix appealed raising ineffective assistance of counsel (choice of defense and failures to object/consult), juror-bias challenge, and sentencing errors; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed convictions but vacated and remanded for resentencing on certain counts.
Issues
| Issue | Hendrix's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel unreasonably pursued misidentification rather than self-defense | Hendrix said he admitted shooting but contends it was in self-defense; counsel should have pursued self-defense | Counsel investigated self-defense but reasonably chose a misidentification strategy to attack witness credibility | No ineffective assistance; strategy was objectively reasonable and not prejudicial |
| Counsel failed to consult Hendrix before changing strategy | Hendrix: counsel never informed him and would have chosen self-defense if consulted | Counsel has duty to consult but client consent not required for strategy; no prejudice shown | No ineffective assistance because no reasonable probability outcome would differ |
| Counsel failed to ensure court asked all three OCGA §15-12-164(a) statutory voir dire questions | Hendrix: omission prejudicial | Trial counsel’s own voir dire covered substance of omitted questions; no prejudice | No relief — no prejudice from omission |
| Counsel failed to object to testimonial evidence and closing argument about witness intimidation | Hendrix: should have objected | Detective’s testimony properly admitted as prior inconsistent statements; prosecutor’s arguments were permissible inferences | No ineffective assistance — objections would have been meritless |
| Trial court failed to strike a juror for cause | Hendrix: juror equivocated and should have been excused | Juror ultimately affirmed ability to decide on the evidence; striking for cause is within trial judge discretion | No abuse of discretion; juror properly retained |
| Sentencing: multiple convictions/sentences for same conduct | Hendrix: convictions and concurrent sentences duplicative | Court: felony murder and malice could both have been found but cannot both be sentenced where single victim; aggravated assault is lesser included | Vacated felony murder and aggravated assault convictions/sentences; remand for proper sentence on felon-in-possession count |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (counsel’s duty to consult on strategy; client consent not required for strategy)
- Van Alstine v. State, 263 Ga. 1 (failure to consult requires showing of prejudice)
- Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (vacating redundant felony-murder conviction where single victim)
- Dyal v. State, 297 Ga. 184 (aggravated assault as lesser included offense of murder)