Young v. State, 309 Ga. 529

Background

On March 1, 2016 Shane Varnadore, a Papa John’s delivery driver, was shot and killed after delivering pizzas to Unit 10108 at the Wesley Herrington Apartments. A spent .40‑caliber shell casing and delivery materials were found near the scene.
Police linked the pizza order TracFone number to Malek Buckley, found Buckley lived in Unit 9301, and, via Facebook, located Jermaine Young (and Reginald Lofton) as associates; phone records showed calls between the TracFone and Young’s number near the time of the shooting.
A March 2, 2016 SWAT search of Unit 9301 recovered the TracFone, pizza boxes, and a .40‑caliber handgun hidden inside a pancake mix box; five occupants (including Young) were taken to HQ and interviewed.
Young was interviewed three times. He initially denied involvement, then admitted agreeing to assist in a robbery but claimed he backed out just before the shooting; he also acknowledged taking photos with guns and that his fingerprints might be on the recovered gun.
The State introduced a Facebook photo (purportedly of Young with a gun) shown to Young during interrogation. Young was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault and sentenced to life; he appealed raising (1) suppression of his statements, (2) admission of the Facebook photo, and (3) ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress the search warrant.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Young)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1) Whether Young’s Miranda waiver was knowing where detective said an appointed lawyer is only provided after charging	Kenck misled Young about an immediate right to a lawyer; waiver therefore not knowing	Detective properly gave Miranda warnings; explaining appointment after charge related to Sixth Amendment and did not contradict Miranda	Waiver was knowing and intelligent; no clear error in trial court finding waiver valid
2) Whether Young’s statement “I’m done talking…if y’all find this s* so funny, I’m done talking” invoked the right to remain silent	The statement was an unequivocal invocation and police should have ceased questioning	Statement was equivocal and conditional; Young continued talking after detectives’ assurances	Not an unequivocal invocation; interrogation need not have stopped
3) Admissibility of Facebook photo showing Young with a gun	Photo irrelevant, prejudicial, and impermissible character evidence	Photo relevant to Young’s credibility and to explain why he changed his story after it was shown	Even if admission was erroneous, error was harmless given strong inculpatory evidence and Young’s admissions
4) IAC for failure to move to suppress search warrant for Unit 9301	Trial counsel unreasonably assumed Young lacked standing; a suppression motion would have succeeded because the affidavit lacked probable cause	Magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; failure to file would have been futile	IAC claim fails: Young did not make a strong showing motion would have succeeded; warrant review entitled to deference

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation warnings and waiver standard)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (standards for invoking Miranda right to remain silent)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (Sixth Amendment counsel attachment at initiation of adversary proceedings)
Williamson v. State, 305 Ga. 889 (2019) (Miranda waiver analysis under totality of circumstances)
Dozier v. State, 306 Ga. 29 (2019) (clarifies requirements for invoking right to remain silent or counsel)
Barnes v. State, 287 Ga. 423 (2010) (conditional statements are not unequivocal invocations)
Prince v. State, 295 Ga. 788 (2014) (probable cause standard for search warrants and magistrate deference)
Glispie v. State, 300 Ga. 128 (2016) (linking facts sufficient to support search warrant probable cause)