Whitner v. State, 415 S.E.2d 52 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Whitner v. State, 415 S.E.2d 52 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Haygood v. State (gactapp, 2008-01-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Haygood v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
See Strickland, supra at 697 (IV). 19 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Martin v. Barrett, 279 Ga. 593, 594 ( 619 SE2d 656 ) (2005) (affirming habeas court’s finding of deficient performance where counsel knew of defendant’s recent hospitalization and treatment for mental illness, but failed to investigate due to inattention). 20 (Citations omitted.) Breland v. State, 285 Ga. App. 251, 253 (2) ( 648 SE2d 389 ) (2007). 21 (Citation omitted.) Scott, supra at 114 (4) (b) (counsel’s assistance not ineffective where trial counsel did not pursue psychological evaluation of defendant because …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bixby v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
M., 241 Ga. App. 805, 808 (2) ( 527 SE2d 633 ) (2000). 3 Compare Brown v. State, 206 Ga. App. 800, 801 ( 427 SE2d 9 ) (1992). 4 Court of Appeals Rule 27 (c) (3) (i); Mann v. State, 244 Ga. App. 756, 761 (9) ( 536 SE2d 608 ) (2000). 5 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 687 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). 6 Id. at 687-689 . 7 (Citations omitted.) Stansell v. State, 270 Ga. 147, 150 (2) ( 510 SE2d 292 ) (1998). 8 Whitner v. State, 202 Ga. App. 608, 609 ( 415 SE2d 52 ) (1992). 9 42 CFR § 430.0 . 10 42 CFR § 431.10 . 11 OCGA §§ 49-4-142; 49-4-143. 12 OCGA § 49-4-146.1 (b) (2). 13 OCGA…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Smith, P. J., and Barnes, J., concur. 1 Newman v. State, 233 Ga. App. 794 (1) ( 504 SE2d 476 ) (1998). 2 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); Newman, supra. 3 Supra. 4 The parties stipulated to the admission of both statements without Thomas’s sister-in-law’s testimony. 5 OCGA § 16-8-2. 6 See generally Havron v. State, 234 Ga. App. 413, 414 (1) ( 506 SE2d 421 ) (1998) (witness credibility is for the jury to determine). 7 OCGA § 16-7-1. 8 OCGA § 16-11-37 (a). 9 Id. 10 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Scott v. State, 225 Ga. App. 729, 732 (3) ( 484 SE2d 780 ) (1997). 11 Id.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Reed, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. 1 Newman v. State, 233 Ga. App. 794 (1) ( 504 SE2d 476 ) (1998). 2 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); Newman, supra. 3 Supra. 4 See Smith v. State, 246 Ga. App. 191, 192 (1) ( 539 SE2d 881 ) (2000). 5 OCGA § 24-4-8. 6 Samuels v. State, 223 Ga. App. 275 (1) ( 477 SE2d 414 ) (1996). 7 Id. at 276 . 8 See Smith, supra. 9 Wells v. State, 243 Ga. App. 629, 631 (3) ( 534 SE2d 106 ) (2000). 10 Scott v. State, 193 Ga. App. 577, 578 (2) ( 388 SE2d 416 ) (1989). 11 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Wilson v. State, 220 Ga. App. 487, 488 (1)…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Himmel v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
J., and Smith, P. J., concur. 1 USCR 31.1, 31.3. 2 Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640, 642 (2) (b) ( 409 SE2d 649 ) (1991); USCR 31.3 (B). 3 Riddle v. State, 208 Ga. App. 8, 11 (1) (b) ( 430 SE2d 153 ) (1993). 4 White v. State, 213 Ga. App. 429, 431 (1) ( 445 SE2d 309 ) (1994). 5 Id. 6 Supra. 7 White, supra. 8 Id. 9 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 687 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). 10 Id. at 687-689 . 11 (Citations omitted.) Stansell v. State, 270 Ga. 147, 150 (2) ( 510 SE2d 292 ) (1998). 12 Whitner v. State, 202 Ga. App. 608, 609 ( 415 SE2d 52 ) (1992). 13 Kinney v. State, 234 Ga. Ap…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mallard v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Mallard has also failed to show that independent testing of the State’s evidence would have produced different results or that the State’s DNA evidence was inadmissible. 2 See Whitner v. State, 202 Ga. App. 608, 609 ( 415 SE2d 52 ) (1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Datz v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Appellant has failed to establish inadequacy of trial counsel within the meaning of Strickland, supra. Also, a trial court's finding that appellant had been afforded effective assistance of counsel must be upheld unless that finding is clearly erroneous ( Whitner v. State, 202 Ga. App. 608, 609 ( 415 SE2d 52 )); the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous. 4.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) York v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Although defendant testified at the hearing and denied the occurrence of the conversation about the witnesses testifying, “[djetermination of the witnesses’ credibility is, of course, within the discretion of the trier of fact.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Lee v. State, 205 Ga. App. 139, 140-141 ( 421 SE2d 301 ) (1992). “ ‘A trial court’s finding that a defendant has been afforded effective assistance of counsel must be upheld unless that finding is clearly erroneous.’ . . . [Cit.] Accordingly, as there is evidence supporting the trial court’s finding, the trial court …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anderson v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
“With this evidence, we cannot conclude that there was any reasonable probability that the result in [appellant’s] trial would have been any different if the [identification testimony of the victim’s daughter] had been excluded.” Whitner v. State, 202 Ga. App. 608, 609 ( 415 SE2d 52 ) (1992). 2.
discussed Cited "see" Causey v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Whitner v. State, 202 Ga. App. 608 ( 415 SE2d 52 ) (1992). 5.
discussed Cited "see" Hand v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: accord · confidence high
(Cit.) The trial court’s finding in the instant case is not clearly erroneous. . . .’ ” ’ ” Foreman v. State, 200 Ga. App. 400, 401 (3) ( 408 SE2d 178 ); accord Whitner v. State, 202 Ga. App. 608, 609 ( 415 SE2d 52 ).
Whitner
v.
the State
A91A1632.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Jan 29, 1992.
415 S.E.2d 52
A. Beth Ramshaw, Caleb B. Banks, for appellant., Robert F. Mumford, District Attorney, for appellee.
Birdsong, Cooper, Pope.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

This is the second appearance of this case before this court. See Whitner v. State, 198 Ga. App. 300 (401 SE2d 318) for the procedural history and underlying facts.

Upon remand to consider Whitner’s allegation that he had been deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Whitner’s allegation, and subsequently found that the original “trial counsel’s performance was not deficient. Trial counsel was functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Accordingly, the trial court found that Whitner’s claim lacked merit and dismissed his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Whitner appeals from that decision. Held:

Whitner’s claim that' his counsel was ineffective is grounded upon his original trial defense counsel’s decision not to challenge the admissibility of DNA test evidence even though his trial was conducted before our Supreme Court’s decision in Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278 (393 SE2d 436). In our first opinion in this appeal, we noted that although Caldwell v. State held DNA test evidence to be sufficiently scientifically reliable to be admitted into evidence, that opinion also found the protocols used by the testing laboratory in this case may be subject to criticism on several grounds. 198 Ga. App. at 302. At the evidentiary hearing following remand, however, the DNA test evidence was not shown to be inadmissible under any of the grounds upon which Caldwell found the protocols might be subject to criticism.

There are two components to a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. “First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. Second, the defendant must show that the defense was prejudiced by the deficient performance. Both components must be! shown before we can find that the conviction resulted from a break-1 down in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.” (Ci-J tation and punctuation omitted.) French v. State, 261 Ga. 424 (405¡ SE2d 35). Accordingly, Whitner has only established that his counsel! did not challenge the DNA test evidence. Since he did not establish![*609] that the DNA test evidence was inadmissible, he has not established that his original trial defense counsel’s performance was deficient.

Decided January 29, 1992. A. Beth Ramshaw, Caleb B. Banks, for appellant. Robert F. Mumford, District Attorney, for appellee.

Further, Whitner has also not established that he was prejudiced by his original counsel’s conduct. To prove that he was prejudiced, he must show that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different if the DNA test evidence would have been excluded. In that regard, the trial court’s order dismissing this claim summarized the evidence against Whitner apart from the DNA test evidence: “Briefly, the evidence against the defendant was that head hairs from a cap found at the scene had the same microscopic characteristics as the defendant’s hair. Pubic hairs found on the carpet at the scene had the same microscopic characteristics as the defendant’s hair. Pubic hairs found in the combings in the rape kit had the same microscopic characteristics as the defendant’s hair. Pubic hair from the victim’s nightgown had the same microscopic characteristics as the defendant’s hair. Bloody fingerprints found on the trunk of a car at the scene matched the defendant’s fingerprints, according to two witnesses. One of the victims had been locked in that car trunk, and the assailant handled the car trunk on two occasions during the course of the attack. While the victims could not identify their assailant, the defendant matched the description they had given, including the presence of a facial scar.” With this evidence, we cannot conclude that there was any reasonable probability that the result in Whitner’s trial would have been any different if the DNA test evidence had been excluded.

“A trial court’s finding that a defendant has been afforded effective assistance of counsel must be upheld unless that finding is clearly erroneous.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Harris v. State, 198 Ga. App. 503 (402 SE2d 62). Accordingly, as there is evidence supporting the trial court’s finding, the trial court did not err by concluding that Whitner failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674).

Judgment affirmed.

Pope and Cooper, JJ., concur.