White v. State, 298 Ga. 416

Early morning Sept. 17, 2010, Brandon White drove a burgundy Chevrolet Impala with passengers Ernest Wideman and Alvin Sturgis past a group of people; the car circled back, stopped, and a front-seat passenger fired multiple shots, fatally wounding Damion Collier.
White fled the scene, his car showed undercarriage damage consistent with having hit a speed bump as described by investigators; he initially denied involvement but later told police Sturgis produced a .38 and began shooting.
White did not testify at trial; his prior statements to police were admitted. The jury convicted him of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime; felony murder verdict was vacated by operation of law.
White moved for a new trial asserting (1) insufficient evidence (including possible self-defense/uncertainty about who fired first) and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel based on an alleged conflict because defense counsel had previously represented Wideman and attended a police interview with Wideman.
At the new-trial hearing, testimony conflicted about whether counsel represented Wideman at the police interview; Wideman was not called at trial and counsel testified she strategically chose not to subpoena him.
The trial court denied the motion for new trial; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, finding the evidence sufficient to support party liability and no actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance.

Issue	White's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict White as a party to murder	Evidence did not negate self-defense or establish White shared criminal intent; uncertainty about who shot first	Circumstantial facts (driving, circling back, stopping, rapid departure, lying) permit inference White was a party to the shooting	Affirmed — evidence sufficient to permit a rational jury to find White a party to murder and firearm offense
Ineffective assistance based on conflict of interest (counsel’s prior/possible concurrent representation of Wideman)	Counsel’s prior representation/advice to Wideman created an actual conflict that impaired White’s defense (e.g., failure to call Wideman)	No actual conflict shown: counsel did not represent Wideman at trial, representation at interview was disputed, decision not to call Wideman was a strategic choice	Affirmed — White failed to prove an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (conflict-of-interest claim requires showing an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (defines “actual conflict” as one that affected counsel’s performance)
Powell v. State, 291 Ga. 743 (presence, companionship, and pre/post-offense conduct support inference of party liability)
Bryant v. State, 296 Ga. 456 (driver who did not fire may still be guilty as a party to crime)
Escutia v. State, 277 Ga. 400 (jury may infer participation from circumstantial facts and assess witness credibility)
Barrett v. State, 292 Ga. 160 (applying Cuyler standard in Georgia state postconviction context)