Barner v. State
This text of 578 S.E.2d 121 (Barner v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Corgie Barner appeals his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm while in the commission of a felony, which [293]*293were in connection with the death of Bobby McDonald.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Construed to support the verdicts, the evidence showed that Barner had prior difficulties with McDonald’s nephew, Joseph. Joseph’s mother and grandmother (McDonald’s sister and mother) had told Barner to stay away from their house, which was on the same street as Barner’s home. On December 25, 1996, Barner approached another neighbor, Tukes, to ask about Tukes’s car, which was for sale. Tukes had parked his car in front of, or near, the McDonald home. Joseph’s mother told Barner to get away from the McDonald home; Barner responded that he would go where he wished on the street. McDonald, who was visiting from out of town, approached and spoke to Barner, saying that he needed to give respect to McDonald’s sister and mother. McDonald then punched Barner in the face. Punches were exchanged and the two men grappled with each other. Barner removed a pistol from behind his back and struck McDonald with it. The men struggled over the pistol and it discharged, grazing Barner’s neck. Barner gained control of the pistol and McDonald went behind a nearby parked car. Tukes told Barner that he should not shoot McDonald; Barner stated that McDonald shot him with his own gun. Barner approached the parked car, stated to McDonald that McDonald would die that day, and fired at McDonald several times, fatally hitting him once in the chest. Police found eight spent bullet casings at the scene of the shooting; the pistol was not recovered.
1. The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Barner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
2. Barner contends that in closing argument, the prosecutor misstated the law on malice. Barner made no objection at trial and has waived any right to contend that the argument was improper. Mullins v. State, 270 Ga. 450 (2) (511 SE2d 165) (1999).
3. The trial court instructed the jury on malice murder and justification using the Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Yol. II: Crim[294]*294inal Cases, Part 3 (AA) (1), p. 43, and Part 4 (B) (1) (a), p. 68 (2001). Barner contends that the charged language was confusing, but at trial he did not raise any objection to the court’s instructions. Rather, when the court asked if he wished to make any exceptions of record, he responded: “No exceptions from the defense.” Consequently, review of these instructions has been procedurally defaulted. Pickren v. State, 272 Ga. 421, 423 (2) (530 SE2d 464) (2000).
4. Barner urges that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel because of counsel’s failure to object to what he contends were the State’s misstatements of law, or- to what he contends was the court’s misleading charge to the jury. See Divisions 2 and 3, supra. In order to prevail on this claim, he must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance was prejudicial to his defense. Smith v. Francis, 253 Ga. 782, 783 (325 SE2d 362) (1985), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). To meet the first prong of this test, he must overcome the “strong presumption” that counsel’s performance fell within a “wide range of reasonable professional conduct,” and that counsel’s decisions were “made in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.” Id. The reasonableness of counsel’s conduct is examined from counsel’s perspective at the time of trial and under the circumstances of the case. Smith, supra at 784. The second prong requires that Barner show that there is a reasonable probability that, absent counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the trial would have been different. Smith, supra at 783.
Barner fails to meet his burden. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, Barner requested that the hearing be reset, and then requested that the motion be decided on the arguments submitted in the parties’ briefs. No evidence was ever presented in any form. “In the absence of testimony to the contrary, counsel’s actions are presumed [to have been] strategic. [Cit.]” (Punctuation omitted.) Green v. State, 274 Ga. 686, 689 (3) (558 SE2d 707) (2002). Thus, Barner has not rebutted the strong presumption that counsel’s decisions were made in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.
Judgments affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
578 S.E.2d 121, 276 Ga. 292, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 806, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barner-v-state-ga-2003.