Perkins v. State
328 Ga. App. 508
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Perkins was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses against his two minor stepsons and sentenced; he appealed but did not challenge sufficiency of the evidence.
- At trial Perkins testified and denied the offenses; the State presented victim testimony, hearsay statements under former OCGA § 24-3-16, and a statement by Perkins to police admitting culpability.
- Perkins had a pre-offense diagnosis of bipolar disorder, told police post-offense that he “needed help,” and had a history of angry/abusive behavior known to trial counsel.
- Trial counsel did not seek a psychological evaluation, did not assert insanity or incompetency defenses, and did not request a jury instruction on “guilty but mentally ill.”
- Perkins moved for a new trial asserting ineffective assistance (failure to investigate mental health and request a guilty-but-mentally-ill charge), that the court should have sua sponte ordered an evaluation and instructed on guilty but mentally ill, and that the court considered a presentence report he had not seen.
- The trial court denied relief; the appellate court affirmed, finding no reversible error—Perkins failed to show prejudice from counsel’s alleged deficiency and the court had no sua sponte duty absent a proper assertion or evidence of incompetency.
Issues
| Issue | Perkins' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Ineffective assistance for failing to investigate/raise mental-health/insanity issues | Counsel knew of bipolar diagnosis and post-arrest statements; investigation would have produced a guilty-but-mentally-ill charge and different outcome | No expert showed that evaluation would have supported insanity or changed verdict; failure to investigate alone is not prejudicial without proof | No prejudice shown under Strickland; claim fails for lack of demonstrated reasonable probability of different result |
| 2) Trial court’s sua sponte duty to order mental evaluation and give guilty-but-mentally-ill instruction | Court should have independently ordered evaluation and instructed jury on guilty-but-mentally-ill | No request or defense of insanity was interposed; no obligation to act sua sponte absent evidence of incompetency or a timely request | No sua sponte duty; Ake does not require court to act without defendant’s request or showing |
| 3) Use of presentence report not provided to Perkins before sentencing | Sentencing court relied on aggravating matters in report Perkins did not see | Record unclear but Perkins raised no contemporaneous objection at sentencing | Claim waived for failure to object at hearing; no reversible error |
| 4) Entitlement to statutory jury instruction (guilty but mentally ill) | Would have been entitled to instruction if insanity defense were interposed | Statute requires the insanity defense be interposed to trigger instruction | Instruction not required because Perkins never asserted insanity or incompetency at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficient-performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (state must provide psychiatric assistance when sanity is a significant factor and defendant requests help)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (reasonableness of counsel’s investigation assessed under Strickland)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (further guidance on Strickland prejudice standard)
- Arnold v. State, 292 Ga. 268 (Georgia summary of Strickland principles)
- Martin v. Barrett, 279 Ga. 593 (Georgia discussion on when counsel must investigate psychiatric history)
- Jackson v. State, 294 Ga. 431 (trial court’s sua sponte duty to investigate competency when evidence raises doubt)
- Presnell v. State, 241 Ga. 49 (trial court’s inherent authority to appoint mental-health experts)
- Abernathy v. State, 289 Ga. 603 (mental illness short of legal insanity is not a defense under Georgia law)