The State v. Shelton, 765 S.E.2d 732

Shelton was convicted after a jury trial of cocaine possession, two counts of obstructing an officer, and a sound violation; the trial court granted a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel; on appeal, the State argues trial counsel was not ineffective and the trial court erred in its new-trial ruling.
The stop occurred March 16, 2012, for a sound violation; Shelton consented to a vehicle search after officers checked license, registration, and window tint.
Evidence included digital scales with cocaine residue, rolling papers, a razor blade, cash on Shelton, and other items tied to drug activity; lab tests confirmed cocaine residue.
Shelton’s new-trial motion challenged (i) suppression of the vehicle search, (ii) suppression of a brief pat-down, (iii) defense investigation/call of witnesses, and (iv) admission of the scales with cocaine residue; the appellate court reviews legal questions de novo and factual findings for clear error.
The court reviews the two standards of review for ineffective assistance claims and ultimately reverses the trial court’s grant of a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress vehicle search	Shelton	Shelton's counsel should have filed a suppression motion	No; suppression unlikely; Fourth Amendment not violated.
Ineffective assistance for failing to suppress pat-down	Shelton	Pat-down was unjustified or tainted subsequent search	No; brief pat-down did not extend stop or taint vehicle search.
Duty to investigate/call witnesses	Shelton	Counsel did not breach duty; he did not request witnesses	No; Shelton did not identify witnesses or indicate desire to call them.
Objection to admission of digital scales with cocaine residue	Shelton	Chain of custody inadequate	No; chain of custody adequately established; objection would have been futile.

Salmeron v. State, 280 Ga. 735 (2006) (limits on Fourth Amendment stop and consent-based searches during lawful detention)
Roberts v. State, 263 Ga. 807 (1994) (no per se counsel ineffectiveness for not filing suppression; must show reasonable probability of suppression)
Wofford v. State, 321 Ga. App. 249 (2013) (mixed questions of law and fact; de novo review for legal conclusions)
Suggs v. State, 272 Ga. 85 (2000) (standard for assessing ineffective assistance on mixed questions of law and fact)
Wakefield v. State, 324 Ga. App. 587 (2013) (defer to trial court on factual findings; review law de novo)
Gray v. State, 291 Ga. App. 573 (2008) (trial tactics; not per se ineffective)