State v. Harris, 301 Ga. 234

In Sept. 2011 a Fulton County jury convicted Quantavious Harris of felony murder and related offenses for the April 22, 2009 killing of taxi driver Stephen Anim; Harris was sentenced to life.
At trial the State admitted Harris’s text messages (April 21–22, 2009) showing threats and intent, and cell-subscriber/tower data; counsel objected on hearsay/authentication but did not move to suppress for lack of a warrant.
After conviction Harris filed an amended motion for new trial arguing trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the text-message contents obtained by court order rather than a warrant.
At the new-trial hearing the State did not introduce a warrant into the record (a warrant and affidavit were later attached to the State’s reconsideration motion but not made part of the hearing record).
The trial court granted a new trial, finding counsel’s failure to move to suppress was professionally unreasonable and prejudicial under Strickland because the messages were obtained without a probable-cause warrant.
The State appealed; the Georgia Supreme Court reviewed Strickland prejudice de novo, concluded Harris failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome without the messages, and reversed the grant of a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress text-message contents obtained by court order instead of a warrant	Harris: counsel unreasonably failed to move to suppress; messages were obtained without a warrant and would have been suppressed, causing prejudice	State: counsel’s omission could have been cured by the State obtaining a warrant; even without messages the evidence supports conviction	Court declined to decide deficiency; held Harris failed Strickland prejudice prong—no reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the messages
Whether post-hearing production of a warrant can be considered in evaluating prejudice	Harris: post-hearing warrant irrelevant because not in record	State: post-hearing warrant shows error was curable	Court: refused to consider the post-hearing warrant because it was not part of the motion-for-new-trial record

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test—performance and prejudice)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (ineffective-assistance claims attacking search warrant or suppression require a demanding showing of prejudice)
Smith v. State, 296 Ga. 731 (discusses counsel performance standard in Georgia ineffective-assistance claims)
Hampton v. State, 295 Ga. 665 (addresses warrant requirement for recent electronic communications)
King v. State, 300 Ga. 180 (appellate rule that appellant must preserve record to prove error)