Howard v. State
310 Ga. App. 659
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Howard was convicted by a Lowndes County jury of kidnapping and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
- The evidence showed a May 7, 2007 robbery: a gunman hijacked a Pepsi-Cola delivery truck, drove the driver to a dirt road several miles away, and forced him to open the truck’s safe.
- Video surveillance and witness testimony linked Howard to the Wal-Mart parking lot and to the later pickup of the PT Cruiser used in the crime.
- Howard admitted being at the Wal-Mart and testified a plan to steal drinks existed, but claimed he was not involved in kidnapping; the State argued the movement constituted abducting the driver.
- Howard challenged the sufficiency of the kidnapping evidence, the prosecutor’s cross-examination remarks about employment termination, and the effectiveness of his trial counsel.
- The trial court denied relief on ineffective-assistance grounds, and the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of kidnapping evidence | Howard argues the record fails to prove abduction beyond a reasonable doubt. | Howard contends the movement did not constitute kidnapping under Garza criteria. | Sufficient evidence supports kidnapping conviction. |
| Prosecutor's cross-examination on character | Howard claims the term 'termination' implied firing for misconduct. | State contends 'termination' merely means end of employment and does not imply bad character. | No improper comment on character; not reversible error. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel - general | Howard asserts multiple deficiencies in trial counsel’s performance. | State contends counsel's conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. | No ineffective assistance; performance was not deficient or prejudicial. |
| Failure to call character witnesses | Howard contends counsel should have called four witnesses to testify to his character. | Counsel reasonably avoided opening door to cross-examination and bad-character evidence. | Trial counsel not ineffective for not calling those witnesses. |
| Failure to request lesser-included offenses | Howard argues trial counsel should have sought false imprisonment or hijacking charges. | No reasonable probability those charges would change outcome given overwhelming kidnapping evidence. | No prejudice; no error in not requesting lesser-included offenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 (Ga. 2008) (four-factor test for abduction/stealing away; movement must substantially isolate victim)
- Richardson v. State, 173 Ga. App. 695 (Ga. App. 1985) (clarifies interpretation of ambiguous character evidence)
- Ferguson v. State, 307 Ga. App. 232 (Ga. App. 2010) (jury verdict control on conflicts; evidence viewed in light most favorable)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standards: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1986) (prejudice element in ineffective assistance)
- Thomas v. State, 282 Ga. 894 (Ga. 2008) (character evidence and strategy; denied ineffective-assistance claim)
- Gresham v. State, 295 Ga. App. 449 (Ga. App. 2009) (trial court may exclude biased character testimony; strategy judgment)