Russell v. State
322 Ga. App. 553
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Bobby Russell was convicted of burglary after police responded to a burglary-in-progress at a LaGrange grocery store; officer observed Russell on the store loading dock with unopened beer and he fled, leaving discarded cases of beer along a path.
- Two minors (including Russell’s 12-year-old nephew) testified that Russell entered the store and took beer. Georgia law forbids conviction on uncorroborated accomplice testimony.
- Russell was captured after a short chase through woods behind the store; prosecution relied on accomplice testimony plus circumstantial corroboration (presence with beer, flight) to prove burglary.
- After conviction, Russell moved for a new trial and raised multiple claims on appeal: insufficiency of evidence (entry/intent), lack of venue proof, ineffective assistance of trial counsel (investigation, objections), judicial bias, and error in recharging the jury without notice.
- Trial court had warned Russell he could not get a different appointed attorney merely because he disliked his counsel, suggested the State had offered a favorable plea, and recharged the jury on burglary in response to jury questions.
- The appellate court reviewed the record and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Russell) | Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove unauthorized entry and intent | State failed to prove Russell entered without authority and intended theft; accomplice testimony unreliable | Accomplice testimony was corroborated by Russell’s presence with beer, flight, and discarded cases — sufficient for a rational trier of fact | Affirmed: evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution (verdict allowed) |
| Venue proven? | Venue not proven | Store owner testified store location in LaGrange, Troup County | Affirmed: victim’s testimony proved venue |
| Ineffective assistance — investigation/mental health and failure to object to certain testimony | Trial counsel failed to investigate Russell’s mental health, prepare him to testify, and object to impermissible testimony | Counsel had no concerns about mental health; no expert presented; failure to object produced no demonstrated prejudice; some objections would be meritless | Affirmed: Russell failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland |
| Judicial conduct and jury recharge without notice (bias) | Judge discouraging change of counsel, commenting on plea offer and recharging burglary showed bias and trial-court error; recharge without notice prejudiced Russell | Court properly advised on appointed counsel limits, warned about consequences of self-representation, comments on plea were not improper; recharge responded to jury questions and did not mislead or overemphasize State’s case | Affirmed: remarks did not show disqualifying bias; recharge within discretion and not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance — performance and prejudice framework)
- Brown v. State, 199 Ga. App. 18 (accomplice corroboration requirement)
- Rogers v. State, 247 Ga. App. 219 (victim testimony can prove venue)
- Espinosa v. State, 285 Ga. App. 69 (standards for reviewing ineffective assistance claims)
- Reynolds v. State, 231 Ga. App. 33 (trial court discretion on substituting appointed counsel)
- Mikell v. State, 286 Ga. 722 (meritless objections do not establish deficient performance)
- Cloyd v. State, 237 Ga. App. 608 (trial-court discretion regarding jury recharges)