Wright v. State
322 Ga. App. 622
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Mark Wright was convicted by a jury of two counts of child molestation (fondling and showing a pornographic videotape) and sentenced to concurrent 20-year terms, with 10 years to serve.
- The State had offered a plea of 20 years with 2 to serve; Wright rejected the offer and was later convicted.
- At trial the victim testified Wright showed her a DVD with adult nudity; Wright admitted possessing pornographic DVDs but denied showing a pornographic tape with nudity to the child.
- Wright moved for a new trial, alleging (inter alia) insufficient evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel for multiple acts/omissions.
- The trial court denied the motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed after reviewing the record and counsel testimony from the new-trial hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wright) | Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Trial evidence (victim testimony) was insufficient to convict | Victim’s testimony and trial evidence support the convictions | Convictions upheld under Jackson v. Virginia standard |
| Ineffective assistance — plea advice / failure to inform of penalties | Counsel failed to properly advise Wright about maximum exposure, causing him to reject plea | Counsel informed Wright of possible 20-year exposure, advised judge might impose less, and Wright refused any deal requiring confinement; judge also confirmed plea rejection on record | No deficient performance or prejudice; claim fails (not amenable to plea) |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to preserve transcript for voir dire/openings | Counsel failed to preserve portions of trial transcript for appeal | No supporting argument presented on appeal; claim not developed | Claim abandoned under Court of Appeals Rule 25(c)(2) |
| Jury replay of victim videotape / failure to request instruction | Counsel should have objected to replay or requested jury instruction on replay | Replay is within trial court discretion; instruction not required absent a request; counsel reasonably declined to object as strategy | No ineffective assistance — objection would be meritless; claim fails |
| Failure to object to admission of pornographic DVDs | DVDs were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; counsel should have objected | DVDs were relevant to disputed issue whether defendant showed a pornographic tape; admission was proper; objection would have been fruitless | No ineffective assistance — admission was relevant; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (evidentiary sufficiency standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Port v. State, 295 Ga. App. 109 (prejudice inquiry for rejected plea offers; defendant must show amenability to offer)
- Patel v. State, 280 Ga. 181 (counsel’s affirmative misrepresentations about consequences of plea)
- Lopez v. State, 291 Ga. App. 210 (trial court may permit jury to rehear evidence during deliberations)
- Williams v. State, 284 Ga. App. 255 (admissibility of adult material to prove disputed showing of pornography)