Lemery v. the State
330 Ga. App. 623
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Steven Lemery was convicted by a Douglas County jury of multiple offenses including six counts of trafficking for sexual servitude, pandering by compulsion, aggravated child molestation, and enticing a child for indecent purposes. Two victims were minors; one (R.M.) was 18 when recruited.
- Lemery befriended vulnerable young males via social media, invited them to live with him, supplied food, shelter, drugs/alcohol, and exercised emotional and financial control; he posted ads, transported victims to clients, and collected earnings.
- R.M. left South Carolina to live with Lemery, became dependent, was given drugs/alcohol, was pressured into an open relationship and prostitution, and surrendered earnings to Lemery; witnesses and electronic records corroborated the victims’ accounts.
- Pretrial, the court-ordered psychologist evaluated Lemery and concluded he was competent to stand trial and sane at the time of the offenses; trial counsel later sought a continuance and funds for an independent evaluation on the eve of trial, which the court denied.
- Post-conviction, appellate counsel sought funds for a psychiatric evaluation and moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance for failing to timely obtain an independent evaluation; the trial court denied relief after evidentiary hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence re: trafficking R.M. (adult) | State: Evidence shows Lemery used deception/coercion to maintain R.M. in sexual servitude | Lemery: R.M. willingly prostituted himself; Lemery was the one supported | Conviction affirmed — jury could infer coercion/deception given dependence, drug control, threats, and manipulation |
| Trial court sua sponte competency hearing | State: No hearing required where expert found competence and court observed no signs of incompetence | Lemery: Court should have ordered a competency hearing sua sponte | Denied — psychologist’s report plus court observations did not raise bona fide doubt of competence |
| Denial of post-conviction funds for independent psychiatric eval | Appellate counsel: additional testing needed to assess counsel’s effectiveness | State: Initial evaluation found competence/sanity; no contradictory evidence shown | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion given existing evaluation and lack of contradicting proof |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to timely seek independent evaluation | Lemery: Counsel was deficient and prejudiced case by waiting until eve of trial | State: Counsel obtained and relied reasonably on court-ordered evaluation and moved for continuance when new records raised concerns; no showing independent eval would differ | Denied — no deficient performance or prejudice shown under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Lytle v. State, 290 Ga. 177 (2011) (standard for when trial court must hold sua sponte competency hearing)
- Traylor v. State, 280 Ga. 400 (2006) (factors for assessing need for competency hearing: behavior, demeanor, prior medical opinion)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988) (discussion of physical vs. nonphysical coercion in involuntary servitude context)
- Pullins v. State, 232 Ga. App. 267 (1998) (discretionary standard for granting independent psychiatric examination)
- Robinson v. State, 277 Ga. 75 (2003) (Strickland standard and appellate review of trial-court factual findings)
- Miller v. State, 285 Ga. 285 (2009) (prejudice inquiry under Strickland in criminal cases)
- Whitus v. State, 287 Ga. 801 (2010) (reasonableness of foregoing further mental-health investigation when expert has cleared fitness/sanity)