Leanos v. State, 303 Ga. 666

Margarita Jean Leanos, a member of BOE 23 (affiliated with SUR 13), was convicted by a jury of felony murder (predicated on attempted armed robbery), attempted armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and two counts of participation in a criminal street gang for the March 15, 2015 killing of taxi driver Isaias Tovar-Murillo.
Evidence showed Leanos drove co-defendants to summon a taxi, drove a getaway car, helped acquire and later conceal the 9mm used in the killing, and participated in post-crime planning and burglary with the group.
Co-defendants Moran and Gonzalez gave pretrial statements and trial testimony implicating Leanos; Moran admitted shooting the driver and hiding the gun in Leanos’s car.
Leanos moved for a new trial claiming (among other things) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize that jail-prescribed paroxetine rendered her incompetent, for failing to present a cohesive defense (including calling witnesses and herself), for not introducing character evidence at guilt/innocence, and for not seeking severance or objecting to certain prosecutorial arguments.
The trial court denied the motion for new trial; the Georgia Supreme Court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and Strickland ineffective-assistance claims and affirmed the convictions and sentence.

Issue	Leanos' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict as party to crimes	She was deceived by co-defendants and did not knowingly participate	Evidence (pretrial statements, testimony, actions: driving, acquiring/concealing gun) shows she knowingly participated	Affirmed — evidence sufficient to infer shared criminal intent and convict under OCGA § 16-2-20(a)
Counsel failed to recognize incompetence from medication	Paroxetine caused side effects rendering her incompetent to assist and evaluate pleas	Counsel and trial court observed no signs of incompetence; no medical evidence of incompetence; counsel would have raised concerns	Affirmed — no deficient performance; no bona fide doubt shown requiring competency hearing
Counsel failed to present coherent defense / call witnesses / call defendant	Counsel should have called Leanos and other witnesses (Adams), and offered character evidence at guilt/innocence	Decisions about testimony and witness calls were tactical; Leanos chose not to testify; character witness was used at sentencing to avoid opening door to damaging cross-examination	Affirmed — strategic decisions; no Strickland deficiency shown
Failure to move to sever gang counts and failure to object to prosecutor statements	Counsel should have moved to sever and objected to alleged improper argument	No testimony at motion for new trial explaining counsel’s choices; presumed strategic	Affirmed — defendant did not overcome presumption of reasonable strategy

Robinson v. State, 298 Ga. 455 (inference of shared criminal intent required to convict as party)
Belsar v. State, 276 Ga. 261 (presence insufficient; presence/companionship/conduct may show common intent)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sufficiency review standard viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
Scott v. State, 290 Ga. 883 (applying Strickland standard)
Mobley v. State, 296 Ga. 876 (review counsel decisions under hindsight caution)
Traylor v. State, 280 Ga. 400 (factors for bona fide doubt about competency)
Watkins v. State, 285 Ga. 355 (trial court’s role in credibility findings at motion for new trial)
Rivers v. State, 296 Ga. 396 (defendant’s choice to testify after counsel advice)
Lupoe v. State, 284 Ga. 576 (tactical choices on testimony and counsel advice)
Smith v. State, 297 Ga. 214 (assessing counsel’s witness decisions)
Bright v. State, 292 Ga. 273 (presumption of strategy when counsel not questioned at motion hearing)
Head v. Taylor, 273 Ga. 69 (contrasted case where counsel ineffective for failing to ensure proper antipsychotic medication)