YORK v. THE STATE.
A14A1085
Court of Appeals of Georgia
October 15, 2014
764 SE2d 866
McFADDEN, Judge.
At trial, Christina Craig, who had previously pled guilty to the two burglaries, testified for the prosecution that she drove York and another accomplice in her car to the burglarized stores, and that as they were fleeing from the scene of the second burglary they were pulled over by officers and arrested. On cross-examination, York‘s attorney questioned Craig about her role in the crimes and her plea bargain with the state, and she testified that she had not driven York and his accomplice willingly. Defense counsel then asked her if a gun had been put to her head or if she had been threatened. She testified that a gun had not been pointed at her, but that she, her children and her mother had all been threatened. York‘s attorney asked if York had threatened her, and she testified, “I didn‘t necessarily say it was him, but I know it‘s people that he‘s connected to.”
On redirect examination, the state asked Craig about where the threats had come from, and she testified that York is in a gang and the threats had been made by members of that gang. York‘s counsel moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion, noting that the defense had questioned the witness’ motives for testifying “and has brought up the threats, and I think the door has been opened.”
“Whether to grant a mistrial is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and that discretion will not be interfered with on appeal unless it is apparent that a mistrial is essential to the preservation of the right to a fair trial.” Gorman v. State, 318 Ga. App. 535, 539 (3) (734 SE2d 263) (2012) (citations and punctuation omitted). Here, it is not apparent that a mistrial was essential to the preservation of the right to a fair trial.
As the trial court correctly noted, York‘s attorney attempted to undermine the witness’ credibility by questioning her about her plea bargain and her role in the crimes, and thereby elicited the testimony that she had been threatened by people connected to York. This testimony elicited by the defense allowed the state to inquire further about the threats because “a defendant may not seek to exclude further details concerning the same area of inquiry he introduced.” Cantera v. State, 304 Ga. App. 289, 292 (2) (696 SE2d 354) (2010) (citations and punctuation omitted). Indeed, “where, as here, a
Judgment affirmed. Andrews, P. J., and Ray, J., concur.
DECIDED OCTOBER 15, 2014.
Mary Erickson, for appellant.
Penny A. Penn, District Attorney, James A. Dunn, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
PHILLIPS v. THE STATE.
A14A1308
Court of Appeals of Georgia
October 15, 2014
764 SE2d 879
McFADDEN, Judge.
Billy Phillips appeals from the trial court‘s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, we affirm.
The record shows that Phillips was indicted for multiple offenses, including aggravated assault, terroristic threats and stalking. On August 29, 2013, the trial court held a calendar call at which Phillips’ retained counsel announced that they were ready for trial. The case came on for a jury trial on September 16, 2013. But before the start of jury selection, Phillips informed his attorney that he wanted to enter a guilty plea.
After Phillips had the opportunity to discuss the matter with counsel, a plea hearing was held. The state indicated that it had agreed to drop various counts of the indictment in exchange for Phillips’ guilty plea to the remaining counts as a three-time recidivist. The state did not offer a sentence recommendation, although it did inform the court that during earlier plea negotiations its final offer to Phillips had been for a total sentence of 35 years, with 15 years to serve in prison. Phillips acknowledged, among other things, that he had been advised of his rights, the charges against him, the maximum possible punishment and that he was knowingly and