Perryman-Henderson v. State, 316 Ga. 626

On June 13, 2017, Tanaya Dunlap was fatally shot in the head in a restaurant parking lot; Anthony Perryman‑Henderson was indicted for malice murder and related offenses and was convicted by a jury in July 2019.
Surveillance video and eyewitness testimony placed Dunlap at the car, showed her fall after a shot, and included an eyewitness (Racquel Eagle) who testified she saw Perryman‑Henderson pull a gun and later say, “Did anybody else want to be shot.”
The DeKalb County chief medical examiner classified the death a homicide and estimated, based on stippling and absence of soot, that the fatal shot was “probably 2 to 3 feet” from the muzzle (he also acknowledged estimates and that soot could be washed away; he could not completely rule out closer ranges).
Perryman‑Henderson testified he was asleep, a struggle over a gun occurred, Dunlap had the gun, and the shot went off during a mutual struggle; the white car and gun were never recovered.
Post‑trial he moved for a new trial (amended motion), the court denied it, and he appealed arguing: (1) ineffective assistance because counsel did not correct the ME’s range estimate, and (2) plain error because the trial judge allegedly endorsed the State’s characterization of the ME’s testimony.

Issue	Perryman‑Henderson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to correct ME’s range estimate	Counsel knew pretrial the range could be 1–3 feet but did not correct ME’s testimony that it was 2–3 feet, prejudicing the defense	Counsel thoroughly cross‑examined the ME, eliciting that soot could be washed away, ranges were estimates, and the gun/caliber could affect soot—trial strategy was reasonable; no prejudice shown	Court held counsel’s cross‑examination was within reasonable professional judgment; no deficient performance and claim fails
Trial court comment constituted improper endorsement of State’s characterization (plain error)	The judge’s remark (“Yes is the answer, he did hear the medical examiner testify that way”) endorsed the 2–3 ft characterization and undermined defense theory that Dunlap shot herself	The court’s brief remark simply confirmed the testimony heard; even if error, defendant must show plain error that affected substantial rights—other evidence (eyewitness, video, ME opinion) undercut defense	Assuming arguendo the remark violated OCGA § 17‑8‑57, Perryman‑Henderson failed to show plain error affecting substantial rights; claim fails

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
Lee v. State, 314 Ga. 724 (2022) (no need to address both Strickland prongs if one is insufficiently shown)
Washington v. State, 313 Ga. 771 (2022) (strong presumption counsel acted reasonably; tactical decisions reviewed deferentially)
Bonner v. State, 314 Ga. 472 (2022) (cross‑examination choices are trial strategy and rarely constitute ineffective assistance)
Payne v. State, 314 Ga. 322 (2022) (question selection on cross‑examination is quintessential strategy)
Evans v. State, 315 Ga. 607 (2023) (prejudice requires a reasonable probability the result would differ but for counsel’s errors)
Moore v. State, 315 Ga. 263 (2022) (plain‑error standard and discretionary relief criteria)
Shaw v. State, 292 Ga. 871 (2013) (appellant must show error probably affected outcome under plain‑error review)
Merritt v. State, 311 Ga. 875 (2021) (failure to show different outcome when the State presented additional evidence contradicting defense)