Toro v. State
319 Ga. App. 39
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Indictments were filed in Oct–Nov 2005 charging Toro and others with trafficking methamphetamine, MDMA, marijuana possession, and a firearm during a felony; Toro also faced theft by receiving charged in Indictment No. 05SC36729.
- The State joined the indictments for trial; Toro was convicted on all charges after a jury trial.
- Evidence showed Toro arrested Oct 14, 2005, with Smith; undercover officers observed them with a stolen Honda and drugs in the vehicle; a loaded 9mm pistol and drug paraphernalia were recovered.
- Klein was arrested Oct 28, 2005 in a Ramada Inn encounter with Toro; drugs were found in a fanny pack between them and money was found on Toro.
- Klein testified about her own prior drug history and lack of a preservation of a plea deal; Smith testified about prior criminal history and possible deals.
- Toro challenges include sufficiency of evidence for theft by receiving, timeliness of a grand jury challenge, and ineffective assistance claims regarding trial counsel; the court affirmed the convictions and rejected the ineffective assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft by receiving | Toro argues evidence insufficient to show knowledge vehicle was stolen | State contends record supports knowledge requirement | Sufficient evidence supported knowledge |
| Timeliness of grand jury challenge | Toro contends grand jury composition irregularities | State argues motion untimely; no review | Untimely challenge barred |
| Ineffective assistance—improper trial-counsel objections (passing references to prior criminal history) | Counsel failed to object to remarks linking Toro to prior convictions | Remarks were passing/indirect; not improper prejudice | No reversible error; no prejudice established |
| Ineffective assistance—comments about co-defendant's diversion attempts | Counsel failed to object to State questioning about drug-court diversion implying lack of deal for Toro | Not reversible; no improper prejudice | No prejudicial error; ineffective-assistance claim rejected |
| Ineffective assistance—failure to inform about parole consequences in plea context | First counsel did not adequately discuss plea options/Georgia parole system | No constitutional requirement to inform of parole; only misrepresentation would be reversible | Counsel's performance not deficient; no eligibility misrepresentation |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. State, 277 Ga. App. 867 (Ga. App. 2006) (sufficiency and character-evidence standards)
- State v. Dempsey, 290 Ga. 763 (Ga. 2012) (untimely challenges to grand jury composition)
- Langlands v. State, 282 Ga. 103 (Ga. 2007) (timeliness of pretrial challenges)
- Colon v. State, 275 Ga. App. 73 (Ga. App. 2005) (application to untimely post-trial challenges)
- Boseman v. State, 283 Ga. 355 (Ga. 2008) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice prong)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice required)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (proportional prejudice standard in AED claims)
- Rollins v. State, 277 Ga. 488 (Ga. 2004) (parole collateral consequences in plea context)
- Stinson v. State, 286 Ga. 499 (Ga. 2010) (parole collateral consequences in plea context)
- Smith v. Williams, 277 Ga. 778 (Ga. 2004) (no constitutional parole-notification requirement for pleas)
- Crowder v. State, 288 Ga. 739 (Ga. 2011) (affirmative misrepresentation in plea consequences)
- Mann v. State, 240 Ga. App. 809 (Ga. App. 1999) (duty to inform re plea offers)
- Kimble v. State, 301 Ga. App. 237 (Ga. App. 2009) (parole and collateral consequences guidance)