Windhom v. State
326 Ga. App. 212
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Windhom challenged a second armed robbery conviction and sentence on appellate grounds.
- Evidence showed Windhom participated in planning and facilitating the robbery, including driving, supplying the weapon, acting as lookout, and aiding the getaway.
- Co-defendant Graddick testified; Graddick later pled guilty and was deemed competent.
- A neighbor’s security video documented the trio’s arrival and departure from the scene.
- The trial court admitted the video; Windhom challenged competency rulings and requested jury charges on motive and mistake of fact.
- Windhom contends the sentence is constitutionally excessive, though it was within statutory limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict | Windhom argues insufficient evidence | State asserts sufficient evidence including co-defendant’s testimony | Evidence supported the conviction |
| Admission of Graddick’s testimony given competency concerns | Graddick was alleged to be incompetent | Competency found since two years later he pled guilty and was found competent | No abuse of discretion; Graddick competent at trial |
| Video recording going out with the jury and continuing witness rule | Video violated continuing witness rule | Video was independent original evidence, not subject to rule | Not subject to continuing witness rule; admissible |
| Requested charges on witness motive and mistake of fact | Requests essential to evaluate credibility and intent | Trial court adequately instructed on credibility, motive, and mistake of fact | No reversible error; instructions were full and fair |
| Constitutional proportionality of Windhom’s sentence | Sentence is grossly disproportionate | Sentence within statutory range; no Eighth Amendment violation | No constitutional violation; within permissible range |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1979) (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
- Miller v. State, 273 Ga. 831 (Ga. 2001) (sufficiency and standard of review)
- Rawls v. State, 315 Ga. App. 891 (Ga. App. 2012) (motion in limine abuse of discretion standard)
- Mathews v. State, 258 Ga. App. 29 (Ga. App. 2002) (continuing witness rule; original video evidence)
- Carter v. State, 263 Ga. 401 (Ga. 1993) (review of jury charge adequacy; standard for error preservation)
- Wilis v. State, 316 Ga. App. 258 (Ga. App. 2012) (sentence within statutory limits; no Eighth Amendment issue)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2010) (categorical and proportionality framework for cruel and unusual punishment)