Sparks v. StateSparks v. State
Jаson Sparks was convicted by a jury of malice murder, two
alternative counts of felony murder, aggravated assаult, attempted burglary, and possession of a firearm during an attempt to commit a felony. The trial court conсluded that the felony murder verdicts were vacated by operation of law, and sentenced Sparks to life imprisonment for malice murder.
Malcolm v. State,
1. Sparks, along with three others, conspired with John McLain to burglarize the home of one of McLain’s acquaintances. Before commission of the crime, however, Sparks proposed to double-cross McLain. The others agreed. Upon arrival at the residence they planned to burglarize, one of the co-conspirators shot McLain. Using McLain’s own gun, Sparks then fired at him several times as he ran from the car. After entering the unoccupied house, McLain called 911. When the authorities arrived, he described his assailants and the automobile that they were driving. McLain was transported to the hospital, where he died from a gunshot wound to the chest. Two of the co-conspirаtors made plea agreements with the State, and testified for the prosecution. Construed most strongly in support оf the jury’s verdicts, the evidence is sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Sparks guilty beyond a reasоnable doubt of malice murder and the other crimes.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Sparks enumerates as error the trial court’s failure to give, without request, an instruction on voluntary manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter is not a defense to murder, but it may be a lesser includеd offense of that crime. See
State v. Clay,
[t]he trial judge . . . may, of his own volition and in his discretion, charge on a lesser crime of that included in the indictment оr accusation. However, his failure to do so, without a written request by the [Sítate or the accused, is not error.
State v. Stonaker,
3. Sparks contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a charge on voluntary manslaughter. To prеvail on this claim, he must show that the failure to make the request was a deficiency in his attorney’s performance and that, but for the lack of the instruction, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have found him guilty of the lessеr offense. See
Strickland v. Washington,
“This [C]ourt gives deference to the trial court’s factual findings, unless clearly erroneous, but independently applies the legal prinсiples to the facts to determine the merits of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Cit.) There is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. (Cit.)” [Cit.]
McCutchen v. State,
Here, the presumption of the attorney’s effectiveness was reenforced by his testimony at the hearing on the motion for new trial.
Wright v. State,
The evidence presented at the hearing authorizes the conclusion that the failure of defense counsel to request a charge on voluntary manslaughter was an informed strategic choice which was consistеnt with the accused’s assertion of his innocence. See
Van Alstine v. State,
supra at 4. Therefore, Sparks “has failed to surmount thе requisite threshold consideration and, consequently, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit.”
Anderson v. State,
4. Although Sparks urges another instance of the alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel, he did not raise it belоw. Thus, we will not consider this additional claim on appeal.
Bagwell v. State,
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
The crimes were committed on May 29, 2000, and the grand jury indictеd Sparks on September 1, 2000. The jury returned the guilty verdicts on May 23, 2001, and Sparks filed a motion for new trial prematurely on June 22, 2001. See
Harrison v. Harrison,