HUNDLEY v. THE STATE.
S14A0937
Supreme Court of Georgia
September 22, 2014
763 SE2d 717
BLACKWELL, Justice.
703
1.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that Hundley and Golsоn had a romantic relationship and lived together in a house with Curtis Moore. Early on the mоrning of October 23, 2008, after the three had been drinking heavily and Moore had gone to sleеp in his bedroom, Moore heard a “bang” and found Golson lying on the floor in the living room. Hundley tоld Moore to “get out” and had something black in his hand. After Moore left the house, he heаrd another shot, went back into the house, and this time saw Hundley also lying on the floor. When pоlice officers arrived, they found Hundley bleeding from a gunshot wound to his head and kneeling beside Golson, who had died from a gunshot wound to her chest. Hundley was yelling and uncooperativе, asking officers to “please kill him.” He told them that his gun was on the floor. The gun was found about three feet from Golson‘s body, and it later was determined to be the murder weapon and tо have been fired from a distance of only two inches from her chest. While being transpоrted in an ambulance, Hundley said that he was a failure, that he could not do anything right, that he hаd “done her and couldn‘t even do himself,” and that “he f‘d up.” Hundley‘s ex-wife testified about two previous occasions on which Hundley attacked her while he was under the influence of alcohol, once when he intentionally hit her with his car, and another when he punched her in the chest multiple times, sending her to the hospital.
2.
We turn now to the contention that Hundley‘s trial lawyer was ineffectivе because he failed to present a clear theory of the defense during the сourse of the trial and failed to object to evidence of similar transactions thаt were not sufficiently similar. Hundley‘s motion for new trial, however, stated only that he “received ineffective assistance of trial counsel,” with no additional detail or argument, and the motion was never amended. At the hearing on the motion, neither Hundley nor his trial lawyer testified about the current claims, only about other areas of allegedly deficient performance, and Hundley‘s appellate lawyer presented no argument about the theory of the defense or the similar transaction evidence. In its order denying the motion for new trial, the trial court unsurprisingly said nothing about the claims now raised on appeal. Because Hundley did not raise these claims in his motion for new trial, in any amendment of the mоtion, or at the hearing — and because he did not obtain a ruling on these claims from the trial court — he did not preserve the claims for review on appeal. See Jones v. State, 294 Ga. 501, 503 (2) (755 SE2d 131) (2014); Cowart v. State, 294 Ga. 333, 337-338 (3) (751 SE2d 399) (2013).
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 22, 2014.
Mickey Johnson, for appellant.
Richаrd L. Perryman III, District Attorney, Jess C. Hornsby, Robert A. Rogers, Assistant District Attorneys, Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kathеrine L. Iannuzzi, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.