State v. Tedder, 305 Ga. 577

Background

Dolonte Tedder was tried for the 2014 shooting death of Quleon Glass; co-defendants Eggleston and Tabb pled guilty and testified for the State.
Tabb drove with Glass (front passenger), Eggleston (rear), and Tedder (rear) as they followed other cars looking for rival gang members; gunfire occurred and Glass died of a gunshot to the back of the head.
Eggleston admitted firing a .40-caliber handgun through the sunroof; he was the only witness to state Tedder was armed but could not see Tedder shoot because a laundry basket obstructed view.
Physical evidence: .22 and .40 shell casings found in the car; ballistics could not conclusively locate shooter; medical examiner testified wound could be consistent with gunfire from behind and that a shooter could be in a large area behind Glass.
At trial, defense argued Tedder was present but not the shooter; jury convicted Tedder on all counts.
On motion for new trial, trial court granted relief for ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to call a crime-scene expert who testified at the hearing that the fatal shot could not have originated inside the vehicle; trial court found prejudice and ordered a new trial. State appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Tedder)	Held
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not calling a crime-scene expert	Trial court erred because even if Tedder didn’t shoot, he could be convicted as a party; thus no prejudice from lack of expert	Failure to call expert was deficient and prejudicial because expert would have shown fatal shot came from outside vehicle, undermining State’s theory Tedder shot Glass	Reversed trial court on ineffective-assistance ground: counsel’s strategy to blame Eggleston was objectively reasonable and not deficient
Whether the absence of expert testimony caused Strickland prejudice	State: no prejudice because party liability theory still supported conviction	Tedder: expert testimony would have created reasonable probability of different outcome	Court: Tedder failed to show deficient performance, so no need to resolve prejudice; remanded for consideration of other new-trial claims
Whether trial court’s factual findings on counsel’s mindset control the deficient-performance inquiry	State: trial court’s finding that counsel “never thought” to hire an expert supports deficient performance	Tedder: counsel’s conduct (strategy to blame Eggleston) was reasonable regardless of his stated mental process	Court: focus is on objective reasonableness of counsel’s conduct, not subjective thinking; counsel’s chosen defense was reasonable
Scope of remand following reversal	State: asked to reinstate conviction	Tedder: sought new trial based on ineffective assistance and other enumerated grounds	Court: reversed grant of new trial on ineffective-assistance ground and remanded for trial court to address remaining grounds in Tedder’s amended motion

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1 (2003) (Sixth Amendment guarantees reasonable competence, not perfect advocacy)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (focus on objective reasonableness of counsel’s performance; defer to reasonable strategic choices)
Powell v. State, 291 Ga. 743 (2012) (assessment of counsel’s performance focuses on conduct, not counsel’s thoughts)
Hulett v. State, 296 Ga. 49 (2014) (appellate review accepts trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous but applies legal principles independently)
Jones v. State, 292 Ga. 593 (2013) (objective-reasonableness standard for counsel; lack of stated strategic reason does not alone establish deficiency)
Sloans v. State, 304 Ga. 363 (2018) (if appellant fails either Strickland prong, appellate court need not examine the other)
Stripling v. State, 304 Ga. 131 (2018) (evaluate counsel’s conduct from perspective at the time and avoid hindsight)