Riley v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: February 3, 2026
• Docket: S26A0073
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: February 3, 2026

S26A0073. RILEY v. THE STATE.

WARREN, Presiding Justice.

In August 2023, Zajaliq Riley was convicted of felony murder

and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony related

to the shooting death of Devion Miley. He appeals his convictions,

arguing that the State violated due process by failing to disclose an

agreement to give Detric Bush—Riley’s co-indictee who testified for

the State at Riley’s trial in Muscogee County—leniency in an

unrelated case in Troup County based on his testimony against

Riley. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963); Giglio v. United

States, 405 US 150 (1972). Riley also contends that his trial counsel

provided ineffective assistance by failing to cross-examine Bush

about the Troup County case. Because the evidence presented at

the motion for new trial hearing demonstrated that there was no agreement regarding Bush’s Troup County case before Riley’s trial

and because Riley has failed to show that he was prejudiced by his

counsel’s allegedly deficient performance, we affirm. 1

1. Miley was killed by a gunshot wound on the night of May 8,

2021. Riley and Bush were arrested and charged with felony murder

and related crimes based on the allegation that they killed Miley

during an attempted marijuana sale.

(a) Trial

At Riley’s trial, the State called Bush as a witness, and he gave

the following testimony. Bush knew Riley and Miley from school.

1 Miley was killed in May 2021. In March 2023, a Muscogee County grand jury indicted Riley and Bush for felony murder, felony attempt to purchase marijuana, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Bush was also indicted for possession of firearm by a first offender probationer. In exchange for Bush’s agreement to testify against Riley, the State nolle prossed the felony murder count against Bush, and Bush pled guilty to the remaining counts. At a jury trial in August 2023, the jury found Riley guilty on all counts. Riley was sentenced to serve life in prison without the possibility of parole for felony murder and a consecutive five years in prison for the firearm count. The trial court merged the remaining count. Riley timely filed a motion for new trial in September 2023 and amended it with new counsel in December 2024. After an evidentiary hearing in February 2025, the court denied Riley’s motion in June 2025. Riley filed a timely notice of appeal. The appeal was docketed to this Court’s term beginning in December 2025 and submitted for a decision on the briefs.

2 On the night of May 8, Bush and Riley, who were each carrying a

firearm, drove to the motel where Miley lived to buy some marijuana

from him. They had trouble completing the marijuana transaction

because Bush and Riley were trying to use an online service to pay

Miley and they could not establish an internet connection. They

decided to drive to a nearby fast food restaurant to use the

restaurant’s Wi-Fi. Riley was driving, Bush was in the passenger’s

seat, and Miley was in the back seat behind Bush. After driving a

short distance from the motel, Riley “stopped the car and told [Miley]

to get out.” Miley “tried to get out of the car and [Riley] shot him.”

When Riley fired the shot, Riley was still sitting in the car, and

Miley was “in the process of opening the door and stepping out of the

car.” Riley and Bush then drove away.

Later, someone driving by saw Miley injured and “sitting on

the curb.” The driver called 911, and Miley was taken to the

hospital, where life-saving measures were attempted but

unsuccessful. The medical examiner testified that Miley’s cause of

death was a gunshot wound to the torso.

3 On cross-examination, Bush acknowledged that he had been

indicted for felony murder and other crimes related to Miley’s death,

that he had been in prison for approximately two years leading up

to the trial, and that he had been given a deal by the State in

exchange for his testimony. He explained that he would be

sentenced after Riley’s trial and that, under the terms of the deal,

the State agreed to dismiss his murder charge and to recommend

that he be sentenced to 15 years, with 5 in prison and 10 on

probation, for his guilty plea to the remaining charges of criminal

attempt to commit a felony and possession of a firearm during the

commission of a felony and by a first offender probationer. Bush also

admitted that he had been involved with Riley in other criminal acts

before Miley’s shooting and testified that Riley twice “got out of

trouble by telling on [Bush]”; the first incident involved a stolen car

and the second involved an armed robbery. After the second

incident, Bush was “staying away from [Riley],” and the night of

May 8 was the “first time” they “went somewhere together” since the

armed robbery.

4 Riley testified in his own defense, offering the following

account. On the night of May 8, he went with Bush to buy marijuana

from Miley. At the motel, Miley got in the car with them, and Riley

drove away. Riley, however, did not shoot Miley and instead simply

let him out of the car soon after they left the motel. With respect to

earlier, unrelated incidents, Riley “did tell on” Bush regarding an

armed robbery for which he and Bush were arrested, and after Riley

gave his statement to law enforcement, Bush entered a first-offender

plea. Bush knew that Riley “had told on him,” and at the time of the

shooting, Riley and Bush “didn’t have a personal connection due to

[Riley] telling on [Bush].”

In closing argument, Riley’s attorney emphasized that Bush’s

testimony was the “linchpin” of the State’s case and that Bush had

a motive to lie because he was being prosecuted for murder. The

attorney argued that the State “paid Mr. Bush for his testimony” by

dismissing the murder count and recommending a short sentence

for the remaining counts, pointing out that in light of the time Bush

had already served in prison, he could be “out of prison in a matter

5 of months.” The attorney opined that all Bush had to do to get this

deal from the State was testify against Riley, the person “that told

the police on [him].”

As part of the final jury charge, the jury was instructed that it

was to determine the credibility of witnesses and that

in assessing the credibility of a witness, you may consider any possible motive in testifying, if shown. In that regard, you are authorized to consider any possible pending prosecutions, negotiated pleas, grants of immunity or leniency, or similar matters.

The jury found Riley guilty of felony murder and the related crimes

for killing Miley.

(b) Motion for New Trial

In his motion for new trial, Riley raised both claims he raises

on appeal—that under Brady and Giglio, the State violated due

process by failing to disclose evidence of an agreement to give

leniency to Bush in the Troup County case and that Riley’s trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to question Bush about the Troup

County case.

At the hearing on the motion for new trial, Riley submitted into

6 evidence the transcript from the criminal proceeding in Troup

County in January 2024 in which Bush pled guilty to two violations

of the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, possession of a

firearm by a first offender probationer, and fleeing a police officer

based on an incident that happened on July 22, 2021. The maximum

sentence Bush faced for these crimes was a combined 55 years in

prison. The State recommended a sentence of 30 years, with the

first 2 served in prison and the remainder on probation. The State

further recommended that the 2 years be commuted to time served

and that Bush’s probation be eligible for early termination at 15

years if he complied with its terms. The State explained that this

sentencing recommendation was made “after receiving a request

essentially” from the District Attorney’s office in Muscogee County

to give Bush “a chance to avoid going to prison because of the people

he cooperated against.” The Troup County court accepted the

State’s sentencing recommendation.

The prosecutor for the Muscogee County murder case, testified

at the motion for new trial hearing to the following. In late July

7 2023, Bush agreed to testify against Riley regarding Miley’s murder.

Around this time, one of Bush’s lawyers asked the Muscogee County

prosecutor to reach out to the Troup County District Attorney’s

office. On July 27, 2023, two days after Bush entered his guilty plea

in the Muscogee County murder case, the Muscogee County

prosecutor emailed the prosecutor in the Troup County case,

informing him that they “had a defendant in common, Detric Bush,”

and that Bush “recently entered a guilty plea” in the Muscogee

County case and was awaiting sentencing “until after he testifies

against a co-defendant in a murder trial.” The Muscogee County

prosecutor told the Troup County prosecutor that he could call or

email her. The Troup County prosecutor, however, did not contact

her after this email. Riley was tried in early August 2023. About a

week after Riley’s trial, the Muscogee County prosecutor sent

another email to the Troup County prosecutor, informing him that

Bush had been “an integral component of the State’s case” and “was

extremely helpful in securing a guilty verdict.” She invited the

Troup County prosecutor to call her, which he did. This call was the

8 first time the Muscogee County prosecutor spoke to the Troup

County prosecutor. On the call, she gave further details about

Bush’s testimony, saying that he “did a fine job in testifying.”

Although the Muscogee County prosecutor did not ask the Troup

County prosecutor to give Bush a “good offer” in the Troup County

case, she believed it was “a reasonable inference that [she was]

requesting leniency.” However, “no deal was ever made” and the

Muscogee County prosecutor “did not speak to Mr. Bush or any of

his attorneys saying there was going to be leniency.”

Riley’s trial counsel also testified at the motion for new trial

hearing, giving the following testimony. He did not impeach Bush

with the pending Troup County charges because he did not know

about them. If he had known about them, he would have questioned

Bush about them, including asking if they were pending at the time

he agreed to testify and if that case had anything to do with his

testimony in this case. Counsel did not think about investigating if

Bush had other charges because he was focused on other issues in

the case, including getting the transcript of Bush’s guilty plea

9 hearing as to the charges related to Miley in time for Riley’s trial.

The trial court denied Riley’s motion for new trial. As to the

Brady and Giglio claim, the court found that “any consideration

[related to the Troup County case] given to [Bush] for his testimony

in this case was not given, at the earliest, until after closure of the

[Muscogee County] case,” so there was no promise or agreement of

leniency for the State to disclose before Riley’s trial. As to the

ineffective assistance claim, the court held that even if counsel had

been deficient, there was no prejudice because Bush was “thoroughly

cross-examined” about his bias against Riley, his criminal history,

and his negotiated plea in this case. Thus, Riley failed to show that

“additional cross examination about the Troup County case would

have affected the outcome of this trial.”

2. Riley first argues that the State violated due process by

withholding evidence of an agreement to give Bush leniency in the

Troup County case. See Brady, 373 US at 87; Giglio, 405 US at 154-

155.

Under Brady, “the suppression by the prosecution of

10 evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.” Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. “This includes the suppression of impeachment evidence that may be used to challenge the credibility of a witness.” Danforth v. Chapman, 297 Ga. 29, 29 (2) (771 SE2d 886) (2015) (citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154-155 (92 SCt 763, 31 LE2d 104) (1972)). Accordingly, “the State is under a duty to reveal any agreement, even an informal one, with a witness concerning criminal charges pending against that witness.” State v. Thomas, 311 Ga. 407, 414 (3) (858 SE2d 52) (2021) (citation and punctuation omitted).

Pierce v. State, 319 Ga. 846, 861 (2024).

To prevail on this claim, Riley must show that

(1) the State possessed evidence favorable to the defendant, (2) the defendant did not possess the evidence nor could he obtain it himself with any reasonable diligence, (3) the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence, and (4) had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.

Pierce, 319 Ga. at 861 (cleaned up). We review the trial court’s

factual findings “under the clearly erroneous standard.” Id.

Riley’s claim fails on the first prong. All of the evidence

presented at the motion for new trial hearing indicated that the

Muscogee County prosecutor’s discussion with the Troup County

11 prosecutor implying that he should offer Bush a lenient sentence

happened after Riley’s trial and that this discussion was the first

time there was even an implication of an agreement to give Bush

leniency in the Troup County case. Although the Muscogee County

prosecutor sent the Troup County prosecutor an email before Riley’s

trial, that email did not reflect even an informal agreement or

understanding of any kind related to the Troup County case. It

merely informed the Troup County prosecutor about Bush’s guilty

plea and status as a potential future witness in the Muscogee

County case. And the Troup County prosecutor did not respond to

that message. This evidence supports the trial court’s finding that

“any consideration” given to Bush related to the Troup County case

was given “at the earliest ... after closure of the [Muscogee County]

case.” Because Riley has failed to show that there was any kind of

agreement to give Bush leniency in the Troup County case that the

State could have disclosed before Riley’s case, his claim fails. See

Pierce, 319 Ga. at 861 (concluding that the appellant’s Brady claim

failed because “the record includes evidence supporting the trial

12 court’s finding that no immunity agreement existed”); Burrell v.

State, 301 Ga. 21, 26 (2017) (rejecting Brady and Giglio claims on

the ground that “the record is devoid of any evidence showing that

the State offered these two witnesses a plea deal in exchange for

their testimony”); Rhodes v. State, 299 Ga. 367, 369 (2016)

(“Although appellant asserts there may have been informal deals

between the State and these witnesses which were unknown to him

and not presented at trial, appellant has failed to prove the existence

of any such deals and mere speculation that informal deals existed

is insufficient to substantiate appellant’s claim that the State

withheld exculpatory evidence which prejudiced his defense.”).

3. Riley next claims that his counsel provided ineffective

assistance by failing to impeach Bush with evidence of the pending

case in Troup County.

To establish ineffective assistance, a defendant generally must show both that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficient performance prejudiced him. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (III) (104 SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). Deficient performance requires a showing that counsel discharged his responsibilities in an “objectively unreasonable way

13 considering all the circumstances and in the light of prevailing professional norms.” Thomas v. State, 303 Ga. 700, 702 (2) (814 SE2d 692) (2018) (citation and punctuation omitted). Prejudice is shown by demonstrating “a reasonable probability[,] sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome[,] that, but for counsel’s alleged unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Miller v. State, 285 Ga. 285, 286 (676 SE2d 173) (2009) (citation and punctuation omitted). “If either Strickland prong is not met, this Court need not examine the other prong.” Palmer v. State, 303 Ga. 810, 816 (IV) (814 SE2d 718) (2018).

Walker v. State, 312 Ga. 232, 239 (2021).

Pretermitting whether counsel was deficient in failing to

discover and question Bush about his pending case in Troup County,

this failure did not result in prejudice. Counsel thoroughly

questioned Bush about the deal he made with the State to avoid the

murder charge in the Muscogee County case. This deal was strong

impeachment evidence; it was an express agreement from the State

to dismiss the murder charge and recommend a short prison

sentence for the remining charges, expressly contingent on Bush’s

testimony. In light of that evidence—which was related to the same

charges Riley faced—evidence related to the Troup County case

14 likely would have contributed little to further undermine Bush’s

credibility.

Riley did not present any evidence of what Bush would have

said if he had been questioned about the Troup County case, but as

explained in Division 2 above, the evidence presented at the motion

for new trial hearing showed that the State had not promised Bush

any leniency in his Troup County case before he testified at Riley’s

trial. Thus, the most Riley could have argued based on evidence of

the Troup County case was that Bush had a pending, unrelated

prosecution in a different county and he may have been hoping for a

reduction in that sentence based on his testimony, although there

was no agreement from the State that he would be granted such a

reduction. Additionally, Riley’s counsel emphasized in closing

argument that based on the deal Bush made with the State and the

amount of time Bush had already served in prison, Bush would

likely be released from prison soon after the trial.

Thus, Riley’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails

because he has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that

15 the result of the trial would have been different if counsel had

questioned Bush about the pending Troup County case. See Walker

v. State, 312 Ga. 232, 240 (2021) (“Although it is true that evidence

of pending charges may be relevant to show a witness’s bias,

Appellant has presented no evidence that Stodghill had any

agreement with the State as to his pending charges or any reason to

shade his testimony in favor of the State. Because there is no

evidence of any nexus between Stodghill’s pending charges and his

testimony at Appellant’s trial, Appellant can show no prejudice from

trial counsel’s failure to discover and attempt to impeach Stodghill

with evidence of the pending charges.”).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.