Muldrow v. State
322 Ga. App. 190
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Muldrow was convicted by a jury on two counts of possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime, and on possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute.
- He was acquitted of the murder charges arising from the same incident.
- The crime occurred in the early morning hours of June 1, 2006 on a residential street in Augusta; Muldrow lived nearby and was questioned along with his live-in girlfriend.
- Law enforcement recovered three firearms, ammunition, and narcotics (cocaine and marijuana) from locations associated with Muldrow, including a hotel room he allegedly used to sell drugs.
- Muldrow initially admitted to possessing the weapons and drugs; at trial, he testified he sold cocaine to an acquaintance that night and routinely sold drugs from a hotel room.
- On appeal, Muldrow challenged insufficient evidence for one count, venue proof, and asserted ineffective assistance of counsel related to venue issues and stipulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for firearm crime | State argues sufficient evidence supports underlying felony for the gun charge. | Muldrow contends acquittal on murder negates underlying felony. | No error; inconsistent verdicts do not void related conviction. |
| Venue proof and requirement | State contends venue proven beyond slight evidence. | Muldrow asserts venue not proven; insufficient beyond reasonable doubt. | Venue initially lacking but ultimately established by stipulation. |
| Ineffective assistance re lack of directed verdict | State asserts defense could not show prejudice from no directed verdict on venue. | Muldrow alleges counsel failed to move for directed verdict on venue. | No ineffective assistance; record shows discretion to reopen or stipulate on venue. |
| Ineffective assistance re stipulation to venue | State maintains stipulation appropriately addressed venue. | Muldrow argues stipulation compromised rights without authorization. | No ineffective assistance; stipulation was effectively authorized and presented. |
| Trial court's acceptance of stipulation without explicit authorization | State contends defense authorization was evidenced by counsel's actions. | Muldrow claims court should have questioned authorization more directly. | Courts upheld acceptance; defense authorized through attorney's accompanying statements and presence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 272 Ga. 900 (2000) (venue must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Coleman v. State, 286 Ga. 291 (2009) (conviction for weapon during crime independent of underlying felony)
- Thompson v. State, 277 Ga. 102 (2003) (judicial notice and stipulations regarding venue procedures)
- In re Glenn, 200 Ga. App. 276 (1991) (physical precedent; need express authorization for stipulations)
- Davenport v. State, 308 Ga. App. 140 (2011) (trial court may allow reopening to establish venue)