Sullivan v. State, 308 Ga. 508

Defendant Antonio Sullivan shot and killed Wava Benton at the Caribou Apartments on May 7, 2013; multiple eyewitnesses positively identified Sullivan and he admitted shooting Benton.
Sullivan testified at trial that Benton (and associates) had robbed and threatened him in the past and had been intimidating him after prison, and that he shot Benton out of fear and during a struggle.
The defense presented only Sullivan’s testimony at trial; the jury convicted him of malice murder and related counts in March 2016.
Trial counsel interviewed multiple potential defense witnesses and obtained Sullivan’s mental-health records and a psychiatric evaluation prior to trial. The evaluation found depression, substance use disorders, and antisocial personality disorder but concluded Sullivan was competent and that mental illness did not affect criminal responsibility.
Sullivan moved for a new trial arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) not calling corroborating witnesses about prior threats/harassment, and (2) not presenting mental-health expert testimony (PTSD); the trial court denied the motion and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sullivan)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Did counsel render ineffective assistance by not calling corroborating witnesses about prior threats/harassment?	Calling witnesses would have corroborated his fear and supported self-defense or manslaughter.	Counsel reasonably interviewed multiple witnesses and made a tactical decision not to call them because testimony risked harmful inconsistencies.	Counsel’s decision was a reasonable trial tactic; no deficient performance.
Did counsel render ineffective assistance by not procuring/presenting a mental-health expert (PTSD) at trial?	Expert testimony diagnosing PTSD would have explained Sullivan’s state of mind and reduced culpability.	Counsel obtained records and a psychiatric evaluation that found competency and no impact on criminal responsibility, so further expert presentation was not necessary and was a tactical decision.	Counsel’s investigation and tactical choice were reasonable; failure to present the new expert at trial was not deficient.
Was the evidence legally sufficient to support the murder conviction?	(Sullivan did not contest sufficiency.)	State relied on eyewitness IDs, Sullivan’s admissions, and trial evidence.	Court reviewed under Jackson and found the evidence sufficient to sustain convictions.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Romer v. State, 293 Ga. 339 (2013) (deficiency prong measured against prevailing professional norms)
Neely v. State, 302 Ga. 121 (2017) (witness selection is tactical; counsel’s informed decision not to call witnesses can be reasonable)
Matthews v. State, 301 Ga. 286 (2017) (decision to present an expert is a strategic choice that is reviewed for reasonableness)
Whitus v. State, 287 Ga. 801 (2010) (relying on a psychiatric evaluation that finds competence/sanity can justify not pursuing further mental-health investigation)
Arnold v. State, 292 Ga. 268 (2013) (trial counsel’s refusal to call witnesses after reasonable investigation may be reasonable strategy)
Virger v. State, 305 Ga. 281 (2019) (limitations on admissibility of certain mental-health evidence such as PTSD/battered-person theories for non‑insanity defenses)