Hulett v. State
296 Ga. 49
| Ga. | 2014Background
- Hulett was convicted by a jury of two counts of malice murder and multiple related felonies for the July 2002 Mountain Top murders.
- At sentencing, the trial court held a bench trial and imposed death sentences on each malice murder, with felony murder counts vacated by operation of law; other counts were addressed for merger sentencing.
- The trial court incorrectly treated felony murder counts as merged into malice murder, creating illegal sentencing that left three valid convictions unsentenced.
- This direct appeal/tetralogy involved merger issues, ineffective assistance claims, and post-conviction delay claims, all challenged in various respects.
- The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the improper merger-based portions of the sentencing, remanded for resentencing on certain counts, and affirmed the convictions and some sentences.
- The court also evaluated claims relating to counsel’s performance, mitigation investigation, and delays in post-conviction proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Merger vs. surplusage in sentencing | Hulett argues counts 1,3,5,7,9,10,12 were improperly merged into felony/malice counts and left unsentenced. | State contends proper merger was misapplied and sentencing could be corrected on remand. | Judgment corrected; felony murder counts vacated; remand for resentencing on remaining counts. |
| Whether aggravated assaults properly merge into malice murder | Counts 5 and 6 should merge into malice murder since they Were followed by fatal shots with no intervening interval. | Hung argues subparts show sufficient separation or not; the State contends merger is appropriate. | Counts 5 and 6 merge into malice murder as a matter of fact. |
| Possession of firearm by a convicted felon merger | Count 9 (possession of a firearm by a felon) should merge with malice murder. | This count does not merge into malice murder under controlling law. | Count 9 does not merge; requires separate sentencing. |
| Armed robbery judgments and their relation to malice murder | Counts 12 and 13 (armed robbery) may merge or be separate depending on elements. | Armed robbery elements do not merge with malice murder because distinct elements exist. | Counts 12 and 13 do not merge into malice murder; valid separate sentences were required. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing | Trial counsel failed to hires mitigation specialist and failed to present certain mitigating witnesses. | Counsel acted within reasonable professional norms; mitigation strategy was reasonable. | No reversible ineffectiveness; mitigation evidence considered, and prejudice not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 258 Ga. 181 (1988) (malice and underlying felony can support separate verdicts)
- Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (1993) (felony murder surplusage when malice murder exists)
- Mills v. State, 287 Ga. 828 (2010) (felony murder verdicts and underlying felonies; merger by operation of law)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (ABA guidelines as guides to reasonableness of mitigation investigation)
- Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4 (2009) (ABA guidelines not inexorable commands; objective reasonableness standard)
- Davis v. State, 261 Ga. 221 (1991) (trial court discretion in appointing counsel; no absolute right to preferred counsel)