Following a jury trial, Tamarkus Lekeith Wright was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery and burglary in connection with the robbing and shooting of Joseph Ray.
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence reveals that, on or about March 21, 2006, Wright, Ryan Danrico Simmons, and Elliot May went to Ray’s home with the intent to rob him. Wright and Simmons kicked in the door to Ray’s home, and Wright shot Ray. Wright and Simmons ransacked the home, stealing some money and marijuana. Wright then returned to Ray, who was still breathing, and shot him again. By the end of the incident, Ray had been shot four times, and he later died from the gunshot wound that he had received to his chest.
The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Wright guilty of all of the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Wright contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because (a) he failed to strike for cause a state probation officer during voir dire and instead used a peremptory strike to do so, and (b) he failed to object and move for mistrial when a State’s witness testified to inadmissible character evidence.
In order to succeed on his claim of ineffective assistance, Wright must prove both that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability that the trial result would have been different if not for the deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington,
(a) Wright has not shown that the state probation officer was subject to a juror strike for cause. See, e.g., Jordan v. State,
(b) Wright also asserts counsel was ineffective for failing to object and move for a mistrial with respect to the following testimony from State’s witness Horace May:
Q: [W]hy did you think it was [that Wright]... put [a gun] in your shed?
A: At the time, okay, there was something going on about an air conditioner with a guy named Tim Simms that my name came up in, and with this guy, Tim Simms, however it went, and, I mean, [Wright] wanting to shoot Tim, kill Tim about whatever Tim supposed to been going around saying, so I decided I’m going down to the house.
Wright’s counsel testified at the motion for new trial hearing that he did not object to this testimony because it was his strategy to use the witness’ words against him to portray him as a liar on cross-examination. In this connection, the witness had previously told police that another man, not Wright, had placed a gun in the shed, and the witness had said nothing about Wright being involved with a gun at the time that he was initially interviewed by Wright’s counsel. Because counsel’s strategy to portray the witness as a liar rather than object to his testimony was reasonable, Wright has not met his burden of showing ineffective assistance. See, e.g., Washington v. State,
3. Wright also contends that the trial court erred in allowing the admission of certain testimony at trial. Specifically, he contends that (a) Ronald Williams was improperly allowed to make inadmissible hearsay statements during his testimony and make statements that improperly bolstered the testimony of Elliot May; and (b) Horace May was improperly allowed to make inadmissible hearsay statements during his testimony.
(a) Ronald Williams testified that he heard Anwayne Anderson and Little Lee Anderson tell Wright’s girlfriend, Tasha Anderson, “You know your boyfriend fixing to go do some bump . . . [and] some
Similarly, we find no harm from the admission of Williams’ testimony regarding a jailhouse conversation that he allegedly had with Elliot May following Ray’s death. Although Williams’ testimony in this regard constituted inadmissible hearsay because it was given without May ever having the veracity of his own testimony challenged at trial (see Johnson v. State,
(b) With respect to Horace May’s testimony regarding alleged statements made by Wright to Elliot May following Ray’s death, Wright made no contemporaneous objection to this testimony at the time that it was offered. He has therefore waived review of this issue on appeal. Devega v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
On May 25, 2006, Wright was indicted for malice murder, felony murder (predicated on burglary), armed robbery, two counts of burglary, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court severed one of the burglary counts and the possession of a firearm count from the remaining counts, and, following a September 22-25,2008 jury trial, Wright was found guilty on all of the remaining charges. On September 25,2008, the trial court sentenced Wright to life imprisonment for malice murder and armed robbery, and twenty consecutive years for burglary. The felony murder count was vacated by operation of law. See Malcolm v. State,