Williams v. State
307 Ga. 689
Ga.2020Background
- On July 30, 2008, Barry Bullard was confronted and later fatally shot during an encounter with Allen Deverna Williams, Neddrick Green, and Jeremy Reynolds; Reynolds fired the fatal shot. A jailhouse note from Williams to Reynolds about testimony was intercepted.
- Williams was indicted as a party to malice murder (charged under OCGA § 16-2-20) and tried separately; a jury convicted him of malice murder in February 2011.
- Williams filed pro se and counsel-filed motions for new trial and other post-trial relief; post-trial proceedings continued with different counsel and hearings through 2018. The trial court denied the motion for new trial in May 2018; Williams pursued appellate review and eventually was permitted to represent himself on appeal.
- On appeal Williams raised multiple claims: (1) insufficiency of the evidence (and thirteenth juror argument), (2) ineffective assistance of post-trial counsel, (3) that the trial court ruled on his new-trial motion without prompting, and (4) conflict-of-interest and related right-to-be-present complaints tied to an attorney (Hoffman) who had briefly represented a State witness previously.
- The Court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, assessed party liability principles (aiding/abetting), and addressed procedural and Sixth Amendment-related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / thirteenth juror | Evidence fails because Reynolds fired the fatal shot; trial court should grant new trial under thirteenth juror standard | Williams was a party to the crime (aided/abetted): drove, exited armed, made threatening statements, fled; jury verdict supported | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to convict Williams as a party to malice murder; trial court properly considered credibility/weight and did not misapply thirteenth juror review |
| Ineffective assistance of post-trial counsel | Post-trial counsel abandoned claims by not amending motion for new trial to adopt or add grounds on appeal | No deficient performance shown; original grounds remained before court and were ruled upon; Williams did not identify meritorious omitted claims | Affirmed — no Strickland relief; record does not establish deficient performance or prejudice |
| Trial court ruling on motion without prompting | Court ruled on new-trial motion without a party prompting, denying Williams opportunity to file further pleadings and impairing right to appeal | Court had authority to rule after hearings; Williams could amend until ruling; no authority requires court to await request | Affirmed — no error; court properly ruled after hearings and post-trial counsel rested |
| Conflict of interest / right to be present at in-chambers discussion | Hoffman's prior brief representation of State witness Brown created an actual conflict and Williams should have been present for in-chambers privileged discussion | No actual conflict: prior representation was unrelated and resolved; no evidence counsel loyalties were compromised; Williams acquiesced to absence from chambers | Affirmed — no actual conflict affecting counsel performance; Williams waived any right to be present by failing to object |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. State, 302 Ga. 816 (2018) (affirming conviction of co-defendant under party liability facts similar to these)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Anthony v. State, 302 Ga. 546 (2017) (standards for evaluating ineffective assistance of post-trial counsel and preservation)
- Burney v. State, 299 Ga. 813 (2016) (thirteenth juror analysis and trial court discretion reviewing credibility/weight)
- Hill v. State, 269 Ga. 23 (1998) (factors for assessing conflict when counsel previously represented a prosecution witness)
- Turner v. State, 273 Ga. 340 (2001) (defendant must show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel's performance)
- Ward v. State, 288 Ga. 641 (2011) (defendant's right to be present at critical stages and when that right may be waived)