Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
George
Russell HENRY
HENRY v. THE STATE.
S98P0719.
(269 Ga. 851)
(507 SE2d 419)
(1998)
HUNSTEIN, Justice.
Murder. Cobb Superior Court. Before Judge Ingram.
George Russell Henry pled guilty to malice murder in the shooting
death of Cobb County Police Officer Robert Ingram. The jury in his
sentencing trial recommended a death sentence for the murder,
finding two statutory aggravating circumstances: the offense of
murder was committed against a peace officer while engaged in the
performance of his official duties, OCGA
17-10-30 (b) (8), and the murder was committed for the
purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest.
Id. at (b) (10). The trial court denied Henry's motions to set aside
the guilty plea and for a new trial. Henry appeals, and we affirm.
1
1. The evidence adduced at the sentencing trial showed that Henry
was serving a burglary sentence at the Cobb County Correctional
Institute when he told several other inmates shortly before his release
that he would kill a police officer before he would return to jail again.
Henry was released on July 1, 1993.
He stayed with a friend until July 12 when he was asked to leave
because his roommates suspected Henry was stealing from them. That
evening Henry's friend dropped him off in the "Elizabeth" area of Cobb
County. Henry, dressed in black, had a bag containing his possessions
including a Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic pistol, which Henry's
girl friend had purchased at his request during Henry's incarceration.
Henry walked to a nearby industrial park and began looking for a
business to burglarize.
At 12:39 a.m. on July 13, 1993, Cobb County Police Officer Robert
Ingram was on a routine patrol in the Elizabeth area when he radioed his
dispatcher that he was going to conduct an investigatory stop of a
suspicious "white male dressed in all black carrying some type of a bag."
Four minutes later, the dispatcher tried to contact Officer Ingram but
received no response. Other officers arrived at the area within minutes
but there was no sign of a patrol car.
Officer Ingram's body was found shortly thereafter, only 14 minutes
having elapsed since the time he first notified the dispatcher of the
suspicious person. Officer Ingram's pistol was still snapped in its
holster and Henry's wallet containing his identification was found a few
feet from the body. Officer Ingram had been shot twice, once in the face
and once in the back of the head. Expert testimony established that both
shots were fired from a distance of less than one foot and that Officer
Ingram was standing when shot in the face but was on the ground when
shot in the back of the head. A security guard in the area testified
that he heard two pistol shots fired four to seven seconds apart.
The police discovered the missing patrol car at a municipal golf
course and arrested Henry who was seen, still dressed in black, talking
on a nearby pay phone. Henry admitted that he had been at the murder
scene but initially claimed that another person had used his pistol to
kill the officer. Henry then led the police to places on the golf course
where he had hidden some of his possessions, including the .380 pistol
that was later determined to be the murder weapon.
Henry was taken to the police station where he confessed to the
killing. He stated that Officer Ingram approached him, requested his
identification, and asked him what was in the bag. According to Henry,
Officer Ingram's demeanor during this exchange was "pleasant and
respectful." Henry pulled some of his possessions out of his bag to show
the officer but realized that Officer Ingram had seen the ammunition for
Henry's pistol.
Realizing that a search would lead to his arrest for being a felon
in possession of a firearm, Henry retrieved the weapon from its hiding
place and shot Officer Ingram in the face; when the officer moved or
moaned, Henry shot him again in the back of the head. Henry then
gathered his possessions, accidentally dropping his wallet in the
process, and fled the scene in the patrol car.
Although Henry pled guilty, we find that the evidence adduced at the
sentencing trial was sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact
both to find Henry guilty of malice murder and to find the two statutory
aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). See also OCGA
17-10-35 (c) (2).
2. Henry claims that the trial court erred by denying the motion to
set aside his guilty plea. Henry asserts that when accepting the plea
the trial court failed to determine the factual basis of the plea as
required by Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.9. However, Henry did not
move to set aside his guilty plea until two years and approximately
twelve court terms had passed since his sentencing. See OCGA
15-6-3 (11) (superior court of Cobb
Judicial Circuit has six terms of court per year). It is well settled
that when the term of court has expired in which a defendant was
sentenced pursuant to a guilty plea the trial court lacks jurisdiction
to allow the withdrawal of the plea. Jarrett v. State,
217 Ga. App. 627 (1) (458 SE2d 414) (1995).
Henry's only available means to withdraw his guilty plea is through
habeas corpus proceedings, id. at 628, and the trial court therefore
properly denied Henry's motion.
In addition, Henry's guilty plea was accepted on the first day of
trial, and a sentencing trial followed where the overwhelming evidence
summarized in Division 1 of this opinion was presented. Thus, even if
Henry's motion had been timely filed and the trial court had been
unaware of the factual basis when accepting the plea, we find that the
subsequent evidence does not support the withdrawal of the plea to
correct a "manifest injustice." USCR 33.12; State v. Evans,
265 Ga. 332 (3) (454 SE2d 468) (1995). See
also Wharton v. Henry, 266 Ga. 557 (2) (469 SE2d
27) (1996) (evidence other than record created at plea hearing
may be considered in manifest injustice analysis).
3. Henry claims that his two trial lawyers were laboring under a
conflict of interest that violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
See Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335 (IV) (B) (100 SC 1708, 64 LE2d
333) (1980). In order for Henry to prevail on this claim, he must show
that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyers'
performance. Id. The conflict of interest "must be palpable and have a
substantial basis in fact. A theoretical or speculative conflict will
not impugn a conviction [or sentence] which is supported by competent
evidence." Lamb v. State, 267 Ga. 41, 42 (472
SE2d 683) (1996).
According to Henry, the conflict of interest existed for two reasons:
both of his lawyers served as hosts for a political fund raiser for the
Cobb County district attorney about seven months before his trial; and
both of his lawyers own an office building as tenants in common with an
attorney who has contracted with the district attorney's office as a
child support collector.
As to the fund raiser, the record from the hearing on Henry's motion
for new trial established that Henry's trial counsel and sixteen other
individuals co-hosted the one-time joint event for the district attorney
and solicitor general of Cobb County and that Henry's trial counsel
regularly contribute to various local political campaigns and attend
fund raisers. No evidence was introduced to rebut trial counsel's
testimony that their involvement in such events has no effect on the
zealous representation of their clients. As to the second alleged
conflict, the record established uncontrovertedly that the attorney with
whom trial counsel are tenants in common has a completely separate
practice.
Based on our examination of the record, we conclude that Henry's
assertions of conflict are mere conjecture and are therefore
insufficient to support a finding of actual conflict. Id.; Hudson v.
State, 250 Ga. 479, 482 (1) (299
SE2d 531) (1983) (" 'actual conflict' . . . mean[s] more than the
bare possibility that a conflict might have developed"). We find no
violation of Henry's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
4. Henry's challenge to the trial court's instruction to the jury
regarding life without parole 2 has
been resolved adversely to him. Bishop v. State,
268 Ga. 286 (8) (486 SE2d 887) (1997); Henry v. State,
265 Ga. 732 (10) (c) (462
SE2d 737) (1995).
5. Henry claims that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel at trial because counsel failed to prepare
adequately the psychologist who gave expert testimony in
mitigation and failed to object to improper cross-examination of
the expert. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, Henry must show that counsel's
performance was deficient and that, but for counsel's deficient
performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result
of his trial would have been different. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 687 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674)
(1984); Smith v. Francis, 253 Ga. 782 (1)
(325 SE2d 362) (1985). Henry's attorneys are afforded a
strong presumption that their conduct fell within a wide range
of reasonable professional conduct and that their significant
decisions were made in the exercise of reasonable professional
judgment. Smith, supra at 783.
(a) Henry's contention regarding the inadequate
preparation of the psychologist revolves around the witness'
inability at trial to recall a small portion of Henry's pretrial
statement. At the motion for new trial hearing, lead trial counsel
testified that both defense attorneys met with the psychologist
several times before trial and "we went through everything from A to
Z." At trial, the psychologist testified that he had reviewed the
materials given him by the defense, including Henry's statements.
The statements that Henry gave to the police are lengthy because
they evolved over several hours of questioning; the audiotaped
portion alone consumes approximately 90 pages of trial transcript.
That the psychologist was unable to recall one of Henry's specific
responses in the statement does not lead to the conclusion that
trial counsel had been inadequate in their preparation of the
witness. The record shows that the psychologist had thoroughly
reviewed Henry's statements, and had been adequately prepared to
testify. Trial counsel's preparation for trial was not deficient. Id.
(b) Henry claims that trial counsel failed to object to the State's
improper cross-examination of the psychologist. On cross-examination,
the prosecutor attempted to impeach the psychologist by questioning him
about past specific instances of misconduct that had been referred to a
professional review board. The psychologist responded that each of the
charges had been dismissed or "thrown out." The State also asked about
an incident in a case in Fulton County that had resulted in a written
rebuke by the trial judge in that case. Henry claims that his counsel
should have objected to this line of questioning by the prosecutor
because impeaching a witness with specific bad acts is not permissible.
See OCGA 24-9-84; Wetta v. State,
217 Ga. App. 128 (3) (456 SE2d 696) (1995).
At the motion for new trial hearing, lead trial counsel explained
that although he and co-counsel discussed objecting to the prosecutor's
questioning, they chose not to do so because:
[w]e felt like [the prosecutor] was looking bad at that point. We
felt like he was making a mistake by jumping on [the psychologist] like
this, and that we were just going to give him enough rope to hang
himself at that part of the trial. We felt that this was not a part of
the trial that [the prosecutor] was making headway, that he was . . .
picking on . . . a professional who was just doing his job. And . . . we
just felt like he was hurting his own case.
Trial counsel's decision under these circumstances to raise no
objection was a reasonable tactical decision which any competent
attorney in a similar situation could have made. Accord Hammond v. State,
264 Ga. 879 (3) (a) (452
SE2d 745) (1995). That Henry now disagrees with the difficult
tactical choices made by trial counsel during his trial does not require
a finding that trial counsel's performance was deficient. Id. Henry's
trial counsel was not ineffective. Strickland, supra.
6. Henry's death sentence was not imposed as the result of
impermissible passion, prejudice or other arbitrary factor. OCGA
17-10-35 (c) (1). The death sentence is
also not excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar
cases, considering both the crime and the defendant. OCGA
17-10-35 (c) (3). The similar cases listed
in the Appendix support the imposition of the death penalty in this
case, in that all involve the deliberate killing of a peace officer in
the performance of his official duties, and thus show the willingness of
juries to impose the death penalty under these circumstances.
APPENDIX.
Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5 (426 SE2d 844)
(1993); Hill v. State, 250 Ga. 277 (295
SE2d 518) (1982); Wallace v. State, 248 Ga.
255 (282 SE2d 325) (1981); Stevens v. State,
247 Ga. 698 (278 SE2d 398) (1981);
McClesky v. State, 245 Ga. 108 (263 SE2d 146)
(1980); Collier v. State, 244 Ga. 553 (261
SE2d 364) (1979).
As I have stated before, a jury instruction that
follows the language of O.C.G.A. 17-10-31.1
(d) is confusing. A trial court would do better to charge only the
correct definition of life without parole, "[l]ife without parole
means that the defendant will be incarcerated for the remainder of
his natural life and shall not be eligible for parole."
3 However, I cannot conclude that
the additional confusing language constitutes reversible error.
Therefore, I concur in the affirmance of the conviction and sentence.
I am authorized to state that Justice Sears joins
in this special concurrence.
Thomas J. Charron, District Attorney, Debra H.
Bernes, Jack E. Mallard, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E.
Baker, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Christopher L. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, for
appellee.
Notes
1 The crime
occurred on July 13, 1993. Henry was indicted in Cobb County for
malice murder on October 7, 1993. On October 8, 1993, the State
filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Henry pled
guilty to murder October 31, 1994, the first day of his trial; a
sentencing trial ensued and the jury sentenced Henry to death on
November 12, 1994, with judgment entered on the sentence the
same day. Henry's motion for new trial was filed December 5,
1994 and amended November 22, 1996. Henry filed a motion to set
aside his guilty plea on November 22, 1996. The trial court
denied both motions on December 3, 1997. Henry filed a notice of
appeal to this Court on January 2, 1998, and the case was
docketed February 4, 1995. The case was orally argued on May 18,
1998.
2 The trial
court's charge, which tracked the language of OCGA
17-10-31.1 (d) (1), provided as
follows:Life without parole means that the defendant will be
incarcerated for the remainder of his natural life and shall not be
eligible for parole unless he is subsequently adjudicated to be
innocent of the offense for which he was sentenced.
3 Bishop v.
State, 268 Ga. 286, 297 (486
SE2d 887) (1997) (Fletcher, P. J., concurring specially).
Edwin J. Wilson, for appellant.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 -- RECONSIDERATION DENIED OCTOBER 2,
1998.