Chrissie Williams and her three-year-old daughter, Katelyn Williams, were found dead in their home. Chrissie Williams was found bound to a bed with handcuffs and duct tape, and she had a bullet wound to her head. Katelyn Williams was found naked on the
Guilty Pleas
1. Tate argues that his guilty pleas tо the two counts of kidnapping and the one count of child molestation were not supported by a showing of a sufficient factual basis and, therefore, that those pleas were taken in violation of Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.9, which states as follows:
Notwithstanding the acceptance of a plea of guilty, judgment should not be entered upon such plea without such inquiry on the record as may satisfy the judge that there is a factual basis for the plea.
Tate also argues that the alleged lack of a showing of a factual basis for these contested pleas also renders those pleas unconstitutional. We reject Tate’s arguments because, as we discuss below, we find no merit 2 to Tate’s аssertion that there was a lack of a factual basis shown to the trial court in the plea hearing for these contested pleas.
(a) Tate argues that the factual basis for his guilty pleas to the two kidnapping counts was inadequate because the movement of the victims was not of a character that can satisfy the asportation еlement of the crime of kidnapping. The question of whether the factual basis for his plea correlated with the elements of the crime of kidnapping must be examined in light of the statutory definition of kidnapping that was in force at the time of Tate’s crimes rather than the broader definition of kidnapping established by the recent amendment to the kidnapping statute by the General Assembly. See OCGA § 16-5-40 (defining kidnapping); Ga. L. 2009, p. 88, § 1 (altering the definition of kidnapping);
Dixon v. State,
(1) the duration of the movement; (2) whether the movement occurred duringthe commission of a separate offense; (3) whether such movement was an inherent part of that sеparate offense; and (4) whether the movement itself presented a significant danger to the victim independent of the danger posed by the separate offense.
Id. at 702 (1). The factual basis shown to the trial court for Tate’s guilty pleas, including Tate’s videotaped interrogation,
3
correlated sufficiently with the definition of kidnapping imposed by this four-рart test. Although the movement of both victims spanned a relatively-short duration and occurred while most of the other offenses were ongoing or not yet committed, the movement “was not an inherent part” of any of the other offenses, and the movement “created an additional danger to the victims by enhancing the control of the [Tate brothers] оver them.”
Henderson v. State,
(b) The strongest portion of the factual basis for Tate’s guilty plea to child molestation
4
was his own statement in the plea hearing that he himself had undressed Katelyn Williams for the purpose of his sexual arousal. Tate argues that this statement by him at his plea hearing was contradicted by previous statements by himself and his
co-defendants. However, the rеquirement that a factual basis be shown for a plea “is to protect against someone pleading guilty when that person may know what he has done but may not know that those acts do not constitute the crime with which he is charged.”
State v. Evans,
Sentencing Trial
2. The trial court denied Tate’s pre-trial motion to suppress his videotaped interrogation. Despite the fact that the videotape is marked in the record as an exhibit of the State, a review of the sentencing trial record reveals that the videotape was actually introduced by Tate during his cross-examination of a witness for the State. Accordingly, we conclude that Tate has waived the right to complain on appeal about the introduction of the videotape as evidence at his sentencing trial.
See Anderson v. State,
3. As was discussed above, the actions that Tate participated in constituted kidnapping within the meaning of the kidnapping statute that was in force at the time of his crimes. See
Henderson,
5. Tate argues that the statutory aggravating circumstances concerning armed robbery in his case are invalid because, despite overwhelming evidence that he attempted to steal things from the victims’ home, there was not evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he succeeded in actually stealing anything. We find no error, because a murder may be found to have been committed while the murderer was “engaged in the commission” of an armed robbery even if the attempted armed robbery fails or is otherwise abandoned. OCGA § 17-10-30 (b) (2). See Amadeo
v. State,
6. There is no merit to Tate’s argument that the one armеd robbery cannot serve as a statutory aggravating circumstance for both of the murders. See
Isaacs v. State,
7. Tate argues that this Court’s rule against “mutually supporting aggravating circumstances” has been violated by the trial court’s finding that Chrissie Williams was murdered during the commission of the murder of Katelyn Williams and that Katelyn Williams was murdered during the commission of the murder of Chrissie Williams. Even if, pursuant tо this Court’s rule against “mutually supporting aggravating circumstances,” we were to set aside one of the statutory aggravating circumstances in question, there would remain sufficient statutory aggravating circumstances to support both of the two death sentences in this case. See
Zant v. Stephens,
8. Because it is clear that at least one valid statutory aggravating circumstance existed in Tate’s case, the trial court, acting as the sentencing agent upon Tate’s waiver of his right to a jury trial on sentenсing, was authorized to exercise its discretion in imposing the two death sentences. Id.
Sentence Review
9. Under Georgia statutory law, this Court must review the evidence in every case in which the death penalty has been imposed and address three statutory questions. See OCGA § 17-10-35 (c). Therefore, we summarize the evidence presented in Tate’s sentencing trial in more detail below.
Thе evidence presented in Tate’s sentencing trial, including his videotaped interrogation, showed that he and two of his brothers, Dustin Tate and Chad Tate, purchased ammunition, duct tape, and knives at a local sporting goods store and formulated a plan to burglarize the home of Chrissie Williams,
(a) Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at Tate’s sentencing trial was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of each of the statutory aggravating circumstances found in his case.
Ring v. Arizona,
(b) Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the sentences of death in Tate’s case were not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. See OCGA § 17-10-35 (c) (1) (mandating a review by this Court for such impermissible influences in all cases where the death penalty has been imposed).
(c) Considering both the crimes and the defendant, we conclude that the death sentences in Tate’s case are not disproportionate punishment within the meaning of Georgia law and are not unconstitutional. See OCGA § 17-10-35 (c) (3);
Gissendaner v. State,
We note Tate’s argument that his death sentences are disproportionate punishment in light of the fact that neither of his co-defendants have received death sentences. See
Gissendaner,
Judgment affirmed.
Appendix.
Stinski v. State,
Notes
The crimes occurred on December 11, 2001. Tate was indicted by a Paulding County grand jury on February 20, 2002, on two counts of malice murder, eight counts of felony murder, five counts of aggravated assault, two counts of kidnapping, four counts of burglary, one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, two counts of cruelty to children in the first degree, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, two counts of false imprisonment, and one count of child molestation. The State filed written notice of its intent to seek the death penalty on July 8, 2003. On November 15, 2005, Tate pleaded guilty to eight of the twenty-nine charges against him, including the two counts of malice murder. Tate waived his right to a jury trial on sentencing for the murders, and a bench trial was conducted from November 28 to December 2, 2005. On December 19, 2005, the trial court sentenced Tate to death for each of the murders and to the following terms of imprisonment for the remaining counts to which Tate pleaded guilty, each to be served consecutively: two life terms for each of the two counts of kidnapping; ten years for conspiracy to commit armed robbery; ten years for child molestation; fifteen years for cruelty to children in the first degree; and five years for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Tate filed a motion for a new sentencing trial on January 18, 2006, which the trial court allowed withdrawn in an order filed on July 7, 2009. Tate filed a notice of appeal on August 6, 2009, the appeal wаs docketed on November 30, 2009, for the January 2010 term of this Court, and the case was orally argued on March 8, 2010.
Because we find that a sufficient factual basis was found by the trial court during the plea hearing itself, we need not address Tate’s claims under the more demanding “manifest injustice” standard that is applied where a reviewing court determines that there was
not
а sufficient factual basis found by the trial court at the plea hearing. See
Wharton v. Henry,
During its presentation of a factual basis for Tate’s guilty plea, the State provided a brief account of the crimes, but it also made specific reference to Tate’s videotaped interrogation, which the trial court had reviewed during pre-trial proceedings. We conclude that the trial court, in accepting Tate’s guilty plea, “tacitly agreed with the prosecutor regarding the court’s familiarity” with Tate’s videotaped interrogation as being part of the factual basis for Tate’s plea.
Adams v. State,
See OCGA § 16-6-4 (“A person commits the offense of child molestation when such person . . . [d]oes any immoral or indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person... .”).