Harris v. StateHarris v. State
Appellant Antonio Harris challenges his 2011 convictions for felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Marcus Simpson and the non-fatal shootings of Kingston Ridley and Kenneth Williams. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for directed verdict of acquittal and that hе was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm.1
On the evening of July 1, 2008, Ridley, Simpson, Williams, and two other men were sitting on the front porch of Ridley‘s side of the duplex drinking beer and eating pizza. Appellant аnd his cousin, Geno West, came out of Appellant‘s unit, and one of them said, “Why y‘all motherf**kers tear down our cable?” Ridley responded, “Ain‘t nobody took none of your cable.” Appellant and West then pulled out guns and started shooting at Ridley and his friends, who were not armed. Simpson was hit in the head and torso, killing him. Ridley was hit in the thigh, and Williams was hit in the knee.
At trial Ridley and Williams both testified that Appellant and West shot at Ridley, Williams, and Simpson that night. Six 9 millimeter cartridge cases that were fired from one gun and five .380 cartridge cases that were fired from a second gun were recovered
Appellant testified at trial as follows: On the night of the shooting, hе was armed and selling drugs out of an apartment a few blocks from the duplex when Rontryuas called and asked Appellant to let some of Rontryuas’ friends use Appellant‘s apartment on Fletcher Street. West rode with him to the duplex, and Appellant left his gun in the car while he went up onto his front porch and lеt Rontryuas’ friends inside. Appellant then sat in a chair on the porch on his side of the duplex and was talking on his cell phone with the mother of his child when he heаrd Ridley say, “Man[,] f**k y‘all pu**y a** ni**as,” followed by the sound of gunfire. He did not know who was shooting but he immediately ran, hid behind his car until the shooting stopped, and then got into his car and left; he claimed that he did not know where West went. Appellant acknowledged that he went into hiding when his mother told him that the police were looking for him in connection with the shooting. On cross-examination, Appellant admitted that when he was arrested in February 2009, he gave the arresting officers a fake name and date
2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the State‘s cаse, because the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions. We review the denial of a directed verdict of acquittal under the same standard that we use to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. See Smith v. State, 304 Ga. 752, 754 (822 SE2d 220) (2018) (citation omitted); see also Stratacos v. State, 293 Ga. 401, 412 (748 SE2d 828) (2013). When properly viewed in the light mоst favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find Appellant guilty оf the crimes for which he was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32, 33 (673 SE2d 223) (2009) (“‘It was for the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or inconsistenciеs in the evidence.‘” (citation omitted)). See also
Moreover, contrary to Appellant‘s argument, it was not necessary for the State to prove that Appellant personally firеd the shots that killed Simpson. See Moore v. State, 311 Ga. 506, 509 (858 SE2d 676) (2021). Under
3. Appellant also contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. To prevail on this claim, Appellant must prove both deficient performance by his counsel and resulting prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (104 SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). To establish prejudice, a defendant must show
Appellant argues that his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient in failing to invеstigate whether the shots that killed Simpson were fired from Appellant‘s gun. As noted above, however, it was not necessary for the State to prove that Appellant personally fired the fatal shots for him to be convicted of felony murder. In any event, at the motion for new trial hearing, Appellant did not present any evidence to establish what a hypothetical investigation by his counsel would have shown, much less that it would have been helpful to his defense. Thus, Appellant has failed to prove prejudice, even if trial counsel‘s investigation were actually deficient. See Long v. State, 309 Ga. 721, 728 (848 SE2d 91) (2020) (holding that in order to establish prejudice from counsel‘s failure to adequately
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.