Leopold v. State
324 Ga. App. 550
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Police executed a controlled, videotaped delivery of a package from Arizona to an address in Covington, GA; canine search and warrant confirmed the package contained ~4 pounds of marijuana.
- Video placed Leopold at the delivery location interacting with the UPS undercover investigator, picking up the package, and later placing it in the trunk of a white sedan; two other men (Blackford and Cornelius) were present; Blackford fled on police arrival but was later captured.
- Blackford received use and derivative use immunity and testified he did not know about the package; he admitted running because of immigration concerns. Cornelius implicated logistics but was not charged.
- Leopold gave a statement saying he knew only that Blackford asked to use his address and that he felt uneasy; Leopold did not testify at trial. The State introduced a prior 2005 Pennsylvania guilty plea for possession with intent to deliver cocaine.
- Trial counsel (a relatively inexperienced public defender) chose limited investigation and impeachment tactics, did not obtain out-of-state conviction records or immigration verification for Blackford, and opted not to locate Blackford prior to trial as a strategic choice.
- Defendant appealed, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of his Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right; appellate court affirms ineffective-assistance ruling but vacates and remands on the speedy-trial issue for fuller Barker findings.
Issues
| Issue | Leopold's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — failure to review State file on Blackford | Counsel did not review or use State file; prejudiced defense | Trial counsel testified she reviewed the file; trial court credited her | No ineffective assistance (claim fails) |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to impeach with out-of-state/prior convictions | Counsel should have obtained NCIC/out-of-state records to impeach Blackford | Convictions were old; trial court likely would exclude; counsel reasonably declined | No ineffective assistance (no prejudice shown) |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate immigration risk, hotel mailability | Counsel should have developed evidence of Blackford’s motive to lie and inability to receive mail | Blackford admitted immigration concerns at trial; counsel argued motive to lie; no new evidence presented at hearing | No ineffective assistance (no prejudice shown) |
| Speedy-trial claim (Barker factors) | Leopold claimed trial delay violated Sixth Amendment | State defended denial of speedy-trial claim | Trial court’s order lacked required Barker findings; appellate court vacates and remands for detailed findings and analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (framework for analyzing Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claims)
- Simpson v. State, 289 Ga. 685 (2011) (some impeachment is better than none; failure to present all impeachment evidence not per se deficient)
- Williams v. State, 292 Ga. 844 (2013) (must show convictions would have been admitted to prove prejudice from failure to impeach)
- Lovelace v. State, 241 Ga. App. 774 (2000) (appellate review defers to trial court credibility findings on ineffective assistance claims)
- Boatright v. State, 308 Ga. App. 266 (2011) (admission of prior convictions for impeachment subject to trial court discretion)
- Boykins-White v. State, 305 Ga. App. 827 (2010) (failure to investigate must show reasonable probability of a different result)
- Kelley v. State, 295 Ga. App. 663 (2008) (cross-examination scope is trial strategy and rarely establishes ineffective assistance)
- Hooks v. State, 280 Ga. 164 (2006) (ineffective-assistance standard judged by reasonably effective assistance, not hindsight)
- Boothe v. State, 293 Ga. 285 (2013) (no prejudice where additional impeachment would not likely change outcome)
- Higgenbottom v. State, 288 Ga. 429 (2011) (trial courts must enter detailed Barker findings for appellate review)
- Pickett v. State, 288 Ga. 674 (2011) (remand required when trial court fails to exercise discretion with adequate factual findings)
- Jones v. State, 322 Ga. App. 310 (2013) (remand to trial court for proper Barker analysis when lower court’s findings are insufficient)