302 Ga. 404
Ga.2017Background
- In December 2008, 16-year-old Brodrick Williams (Appellant) and 20-year-old Tavaris Samuels drove past Daniel McGee; Williams demanded McGee’s gold chain while armed. A struggle ensued and Samuels fired a single fatal .22-caliber shot to McGee’s head. McGee later died.
- Investigators recovered a 9-mm magazine at the scene, McGee’s bicycle seat and cap, the necklace pendant at the scene, and the broken chain with McGee’s clothing at the hospital. Samuels later pled guilty and agreed to testify against Williams.
- Williams admitted in a recorded post-arrest interview that he pointed a gun at McGee, demanded pockets be emptied, that his clip fell out during the tussle, and that Samuels then shot McGee.
- Williams and Samuels were jointly indicted for malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery, and a firearm offense; Samuels pleaded guilty and testified for the State at Williams’s trial. Williams was convicted of malice murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime; felony murder was vacated by operation of law.
- Williams’s trial counsel moved to withdraw after learning of Samuels’s plea because both were represented by attorneys from the same public defender’s office; the trial court denied the motion after a hearing and again when renewed. Williams did not testify and was convicted; he appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence and an alleged conflict of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for malice murder | Williams argued the State failed to prove he was a party to the murder | State argued Williams’s conduct (armed, demanded chain, tussled, searched pockets) made him a party to the killing | Conviction for malice murder upheld — evidence sufficient to find Williams a party to the murder |
| Sufficiency of evidence for firearm offense | Williams argued the State failed to prove he possessed a firearm during the crime | State relied on Williams’s possession of a pistol and his actions during the attempted robbery | Conviction for firearm offense upheld — evidence supports possession as a party to the crime |
| Sufficiency of evidence for armed robbery | Williams argued the State did not prove a completed taking of the chain/pendant | State argued the pendant was found at scene and Williams demanded the chain; attempted taking sufficed | Conviction for armed robbery reversed — no evidence Williams achieved complete dominion over the chain or pendant (attempted robbery would have been supported) |
| Conflict-free counsel / actual conflict of interest | Williams argued representation by attorneys from same public defender’s office (one counsel for him; another for Samuels who later pled and testified) created an unwaivable conflict harming his right to counsel | State argued mere joint office representation is not per se conflict; trial counsel never asserted an actual conflict or that his performance was impaired; counsel cross-examined Samuels vigorously | No Sixth Amendment violation — Williams failed to show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance; trial court’s denial of withdrawal was not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. State, 293 Ga. 523 (discussing standard for viewing evidence in sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishing the constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Walker v. State, 296 Ga. 161 (party liability and sufficiency principles)
- Dublin v. State, 302 Ga. 60 (presence, companionship, and conduct as inference of party liability)
- Gutierrez v. State, 290 Ga. 643 (elements of taking for armed robbery and requirement of dominion/movement)
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (trial court duty when defense counsel asserts conflict of interest)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (requirement to show actual conflict adversely affecting representation)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (definition of an actual conflict as adversely affecting counsel’s performance)
- Abernathy v. State, 289 Ga. 603 (illustrations of when an actual conflict exists and affects representation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (distinct prejudice standard for ineffective assistance claims)