FI RST DI VI SI ON

PHI PPS, C. J.

, ELLI NGTON, P. J.

, and M CM ILLI A N, J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s /

M ar ch 2, 2015



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 4 A1 71 5 . PARROTT v . THE STATE.

P H I P P S , Ch i ef J u d g e.

Fo r t h e s h o o t i n g d e a t h o f Co d y W ard

, a ju ry fo u n d J os ep h Parro t t gu i l t y o f

v o lu n t ary m an s l au g h t er (as a l es ser i n cl u ded o ffen s e t o t he ch arg e o f m u r d e r )

,

ag g rav at ed as s au l t

, an d p o s s e s s i o n o f a fi rearm d u ri n g t h e co m m is s i o n o f a cri m e.

W ard was i n i ti al l y s en ten ced o n al l t h ree co u nt s

. Bu t i n p o s t -co n v i ct i o n pro ceed i n g s

,

t h e t ri al co u rt v acat ed th e ag g rav at ed as s au l t sen t en ce, m erg i n g t h e ag grav at i n g

as s au l t i n t o t h e v o l u n t ary m an s l au g h t er fo r s en t en ci n g p u rp os es

.

In t h i s ap p eal

, Parro t t co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y fai l in g t o t ak e

c o r r e c t iv e act i o n wh en t h e p ro s ecu t o r m ad e an i m p ro per rem ark d u ri n g cl o s i n g

arg u m en t

, b y n o t i n cl u d i n g cert ai n i n s t ru ct io n s i n i t s fi n al ch arg e t o t h e ju ry

, an d byreject i n g h i s cl ai m o f i neffect i v e as s i s t an ce o f t ri al co u n s el

. Fo r reas o n s t h at fo l l o w,

we affi rm

.

Th e t ri al ev i den ce s h owed t h e fo ll o wi n g

. P a rro t t was 1 6 y ears o l d wi t h an

ei g h t h -g rad e ed u cat i on whe n he f a ta lly s h o t 1 9 -y ear-o l d W ard

. Parro t t an d W ard were

n ei g h b o rs

, an d part o f th e s am e ci rcl e of fri en d s

. Du r i n g a t e m p orary b reak -u p

b et ween W ard an d h is g i rl fri en d

, Parro t t h ad s ex wi t h h er. W ard f o un d ou t ; h e was

u p s et an d wan t ed t o m eet wi t h Parro t t

.

On t h e d ay i n q ues t i on

, N o v e m b e r 2 1

, 2 0 08

, Parro t t ag reed to m eet W ard at

W ard ’ s h o m e to d i s cu s s t h e s i t u at i o n

. A m ut u al fri en d h ad l eft W ard ’ s h o m e an d

wal k ed t o Parro t t’ s res i d en ce t o acco m p an y Parr o t t b a c k t o W ard ’ s h o u s e. As t h e

m u tu al fri en d reco u n t ed at t ri al , i n s ev eral cal ls h e h ad wi th Parro t t earl i er t h at d ay

,

Parro t t h ad ex p res s ed co n cern t h at “ we were g o i n g t o ju m p hi m [Parro t t ]

. ” So as t h ey

wal k ed t og et h er t o ward W ard ’ s h o u s e, Parro t t carri ed wi th h i m a ri fl e. It w as ab o ut

6 : 0 0 p

. m

.

Rat h er t h an wal k i n g d i rect l y t o W ard ’ s res i d en ce, Parro t t an d t h e fri en d h ead ed

fi rs t t o t h e res i d en ce o f t he fri en d ’ s g i rl fri en d. Sh e li v ed acro s s th e s t reet fro m W ard

.

W h en Parro t t an d h is fri en d h ad wal k ed ab o ut 5 0 y ard s u p t he g rav el dri v eway o f t h e

2g i rl fri en d ’s r e s i d en ce, t hey h eard fo o t s t ep s b eh i n d t h em an d l o ok ed b ack

. It was

W ard

.

Parro t t ’ s fr i e n d g a v e t h i s acco u n t o f t h e sh o o t i n g t h at en s u ed

. W ard

– wh o

“ was n ’ t ru n n i n g

, he was ju s t s tead i l y w al k i n g u p t h e d ri v eway ”

– was ab o u t 1 0 feet

away

. Parro t t t o l d W ard to st o p ; W ard s t o p p ed an d pu t h i s h an d s u p i n t h e ai r. Parro t t

“ s t art ed s h o o t i n g I t h i n k h e s h o t ab o u t fo u r ti m es

. ” W ard co l l ap s ed

. As W ard l ay o n

t h e g ro u n d , Parro tt s h o t h i m s ev eral t i m es i n t h e b ack , t h en ran i n t o n earb y wo o d s

.

W ard was u n arm ed wh en h e was fat al ly s h o t. As was l a t e r d e t erm i n ed

, o n e

b u ll et en tered W ard ’ s fro n t ab d o m en an d p as s ed t h ro u g h h i s ao rt a; a seco n d b u l l e t

e n t e red W ard ’ s b ack an d p as s ed t h ro u g h h i s k i d n ey

, l i v er, an d d i ap h rag m ; a t h i r d

b u l l et en t ered h i s u p p er b u tt o ck an d l o d g ed i n h i s s acru m

. T h e p at h o lo g i s t wh o

co n du ct ed t h e au t o p s y o p i n e d t h at

, wh i l e t h e t hi rd bu l l et w as a “ m i n o r g u n s h ot

wo u n d

, ” ei t h er o f t h e o t her t wo b u l l et s co u ld h av e i n fl i ct ed fat al i n ju ry

.

A po l i ce i nv es t i g at or as s i g n ed t o t he cas e tes t ifi ed t h at Parro t t was l o cat ed t h e

m o rn i n g aft er t he s h o o t i ng an d bro u g h t i n t o th e sh eri ff’ s o ffi ce. Parro t t ag reed t o g i v e

a s t at em en t

. Th erei n

, Parro t t ad m i t t ed t h at h e h ad d i s ch arg ed t h e ri fl e ab o u t fo u r t i m es

b efo re W ard h i t t h e g ro u nd

. Th e i n v es t i g at o r d es cri bed t h at

, as Parro t t reco u n t ed t h e

3i n ci d en t

, “ [Parro t t] was v ery co l d

. It w as al m o s t l i k e h e d id n ’ t care.

. . . Th ere was n o

em ot i o n at al l .”

Parro t t

, wh o was t h e s o l e d efen s e wi t n es s

, ad m i t t ed s h o o t i n g W ard an d fu rt h er

g av e t h i s acco un t

. W h en h i s fri en d arri v ed at h is h ou s e, t h e fri en d t o l d h i m t h at t h ey

were h e a d e d t o Wa rd ’ s h o u s e. Th e fri en d h ad t o l d Parro tt t h at W ard h ad b een

s h o wi n g h i s g u n s t o fri en ds wh o were at h i s h o u s e, s o Parro t t carri ed a g u n wi t h h i m

.

As Parro t t ex p l ai ned

, “ I real l y d i d n ’ t i nt en d

– I ju s t fi g ured i f I h ad i t m ay b e h e

wo u l d n ’ t m es s wi th m e.” W h en t h ey reach ed W ard ’ s d ri v eway

, ho wev er, t h e fri en d

t o l d Parro t t t h at h e w an t ed t o fi rs t s t o p b y h i s g i rl fri en d ’ s res i d en ce. As t hey wal k ed

u p th e d ri v eway o f h er res id en ce, Parro t t recal l ed

, “ I h eard s o m eo ne co m e up b eh i n d

m e.” P a r r o t t t es t i fi ed t h at h e was al read y afrai d

, an d s o

, “ [b ] efo re I ev en t u rn ed

aro u n d I p u l l ed t h e g un do wn .” Parro t t d es cri b ed t h at “ [W ard ] was ru n n in g ,” an d

, “ I

s a i d s t o p

. An d

– Bu t I was al read y n erv o u s

– m y h an ds w ere sh ak i ng

– an d I ju s t

p u l l ed t h e t ri g g er.” In a m at t er o f t wo s eco n ds

, Parro t t es t i m at ed

, h e h a d p u l l ed t h e

t ri g g er t hree o r fo u r ti m es

. He ad d ed

, “ I was sh o o t i n g t o wa r d s [W ard ]

, bu t I real l y

was n’ t t ry i ng t o s h o o t h i m .”

41

. Ci t i n g OCGA § 1 7-8 -7 5

, 1 Parro tt co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y fai l i n g

t o t ak e cu rat i v e act i o n w h en t h e p ro s ecu t or i n cl u d ed wh at h e cl ai m s was a “ fu t u re

d an gero us nes s ” rem ark d u ri n g cl o s i n g arg u m en t

. 2

It i s w el l s et t l ed t h at th e bu rd en i s o n t h e ap p el l an t “ wh o as s ert s erro r t o s h o w

i t affi rm at i v el y b y t h e reco rd ”; 3 fu rt h er, “ an ap p el lan t

, in ord er t o s ecu re a rev ers al

,

m u st d em o n s t rat e n o t o n l y erro r b ut h arm .” 4 Bu t as Parro t t co n ced ed i n h i s ap p el l at e

b ri ef, cl o s i ng arg u m en t s were n o t tran s cri b ed

. 5 “ [W ] h ere t h e t ran s cri pt d o es n o t fu l l y

1 (“ W h e r e c o u n s el i n t h e h eari n g o f th e ju ry m ak e s t at em en t s o f p reju d i ci al

m at t ers wh i ch are n ot i n ev i d en ce, i t i s t he du t y of t h e co u rt t o i nt erp o s e an d p rev en t

t h e s am e. O n o b

j e c t i o n m ad e, t h e co u rt s h al l al s o reb u k e t h e co u ns el an d b y al l

n eed fu l an d p ro p er i n s t ru ct i o n s t o th e ju ry en d eav o r t o rem ov e th e i m p ro p er

i m p res s i o n fro m t h ei r m i n ds ; o r, i n h is d i s cret i o n

, he m ay o rd er a m i s t ri al i f t h e

p ro s ecu ti n g at to rn ey

i s t he o ffen d er.”)

2 See Jo n es v. S t a t e

, 2 8 8 Ga. 4 3 1

, 4 3 3-4 3 4 (7 0 4 SE2 d 7 76 ) (2 0 1 1) (rei t erat i n g

t h at “ i t i s i m

p ro p er fo r a pro secu t o r t o arg u e t o th e ju ry d uri n g t h e g u i l t

- i n n o cen ce

p h as e o f a t ri al t h at i f t h e d efen d an t i s f o u n d n o t g u il t y

, t h e defen d an t wi l l p o s e a

t h reat o f fu t u re d an g ero u s n es s ”).

3 Gr i f f in v. S t at e

, 2 6 5 Ga. 5 5 2

, 5 5 5 (1 0 ) (4 5 8 SE2 d 8 1 3 ) (1 99 5 ), q uo t i n g Ro a ch

v. S t a t e, 2 2 1 Ga. 7 8 3 , 7 8 6 (4 ) (1 4 7 SE2 d 2 9 9 ) (1 9 66 ).

4 Gr i f f i n , s u p ra at 5 5 4 (6 ) (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ).

5 See, h o wev er, S

co t t v. S t a t e

, 2 9 0 Ga. 8 8 3

, 8 8 5 (2 ) (7 2 5 SE2 d 30 5 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (“ A

cl o s i n g a r g u m e n t i s t o b e ju d g ed i n th e co nt ex t i n wh i ch it i s m ad e.”) (ci t at i o n

o m it t ed ); Ar r i n g to n v. St a t e

, 2 8 6 Ga. 3 35

, 3 4 6 (1 6 ) (a) ( 6 8 7 S E 2 d 4 3 8) (2 0 0 9 )

(h o l d i n g t h at an al l eg ed erro r u n d er OCGA § 1 7-8 -7 5 “ i s s ub ject t o h arm l es s erro r

an al y s i s”); W

a l ker v. S t a te

, 2 8 1 Ga. 5 2 1

, 52 4 (5 ) (6 4 0 SE2 d 27 4 ) (2 0 0 7) (co n cl u d i n g

5d i s cl os e wh at tran s p ired i n th e t ri al co u rt

, t h e b u rd en i s o n t h e co m p l ai n i n g p art y to

h av e t h e rec o r d c o m

pl et ed p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 5 -6 -4 1 .” 6 Becau s e Parro t t d i d n ot

s u p p l em en t th e t ran s cri pt i n acco rd an ce wi t h t h at s t at u t e, t h i s co n t en t i o n pro v id es

“ n o t h i n g fo r t h e ap p el lat e co urt t o rev i ew.” 7

Al t h ou g h Parro tt as s ert s t h at

, t h ro ug h hi s t e s t i m o n y at th e h eari n g o n t h e

m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al

, h e es t ab li s h ed t h at t h e p ro secu t o r m ad e an i m p erm i s s i b l e fu t u re

d an gero us nes s rem ark

, “ [t ] es t i m o n y at t h e h eari n g o n t h e m o t i on fo r new t ri al i n t h i s

cas e i s n o t a s u ffi ci en t s u b s t i t u t e fo r a t ran s cri p t ” s et t i n g fo rt h cl os i n g arg u m en t s

. 8

t h at t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t co m m i t rev ers i bl e erro r b y fai li n g t o p erfo rm i t s d u t y u n d er

OCGA § 1 7 -8 -7 5, wh ere t h e i m p r o p e r s t at em en t in v o l v ed s p ecu l at io n ab o u t a

p o t en t i al d efen s e ap p el l an t cl earl y d i d n o t as s ert at t ri al

, wh ere it co n s is t ed o f o n l y

o n e s en t en ce s p ok en s im u l t an eo u s l y wi t h d efen s e c o u n s el ’ s p ro m p t ob ject i o n

, an d

wh ere t h e t ri al co u rt i n p rel i m i n ary i n s t ru ct i o n s b efo re cl o s i n g t o l d t h e ju ry t h at t h e

arg u m en t o f co u n sel was no t ev i d en ce); W r i g h t , s up ra (co n cl u d i n g t h at b as ed u p o n

t h e to t al i t y o f t h e ci rc u m s t a n ces

, n o rev ers i b l e erro r w as co m m it t ed b y t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s fai l i n g to s at i sfy OCGA § 1 7 -8 -7 5 wh en th e pro s ecu t or m ad e t h e s i n g l e

co m m en t , “ t h e n ex t t i m e [t h e d efen dan t ] d o es t h i s

, h e m i g h t s h o ot s o m eb o d y ”).

6 Gl as s v. S t a t e

, 2 89 Ga. 5 4 2

, 5 4 5 (2 ) (7 1 2 SE2 d 8 5 1 ) (2 0 11 ) (ci t at i on s

o m it t ed ).

7 Id . (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

8 Id

. (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i on o m i t t ed ). See g en eral ly S ea r s v. S t a t e

, 2 9 0 Ga.

1

, 3 (3 ), n

. 2 (7 17 SE2 d 4 53 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (“ [T] h e ab s en ce o f a p o ten t i al l y rel ev an t p art o f

t h e reco rd i s p ro p erl y co n s tru ed ag ai n st th e ap pel l an t .”) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ); S t a t e v.

Nej a d , 2 8 6 Ga. 6 9 5 , 6 9 8 (6 90 SE2 d 8 4 6 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (h o l d i ng t h at “ t he b u rd en i s o n t h e

62

. Parro t t co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y fai l i ng t o i n s t ru ct t h e ju ry o n t h e

p ri n ci p l e t h at “ t hrea t s a n d m en aces o f wh at p ro v ed t o be t he u n arm ed v i ct i m co u ld

b e a s u ffi ci en t b as i s fo r a reas o n ab l e m an t o res p o n d wi t h d ead l y fo rce.” 9

Parro t t ack n o wl ed g es t h at h e d i d n o t req u es t s u ch an in s t ru ct i o n, b u t rel i es o n

t h e ru l e en u n ci at ed i n Ta r ves t ad v. S t a t e : 1 0 “ Th e t ri al co u rt m u s t ch ar g e t h e ju ry o n

t h e d efen d an t ’ s s o l e d efen s e, ev en wi t h ou t a wri t t en req u es t

, i f t h ere i s so m e ev i d en ce

t o s u p p o rt t h e ch arg e.” 1 1

p art y wh i ch co n t en d s t h e t ran s cri p t d o es n o t fu l l y d i scl o s e w hat t ran s pi red at t ri al to

h av e th e reco rd co m

p l e t e d a t t h e t ri al co u rt p urs u an t t o OCGA § 5 -6 -4 1 (f)” an d

“ [w] h ere t h e t ran scri p t i s n ot s u p p lem en t ed

, t h e co m p lai n in g p art y d o es n o t carry i t s

b u rd en o f s ho wi ng by t he reco rd t h e fact s n eces s ary t o es t ab l i s h i t s p o i n t ”); Ca mp b el l

v. S t a te

, 2 6 9 Ga. 1 8 6

, 1 8 8 (1 1 ) (4 9 6 SE2 d 7 2 4 ) (1 9 9 8 ) (“ Becau s e cl o s i n g arg u m en t s

were n o t t ran s cri b ed

, [ap p el l an t ] can n o t s h o w t h at an y i m p erm i s s i b l e arg u m en t was

m ad e o r t h at

, i f it was

, h e o b ject ed t h eret o .”). See fu rt h er cas es ci t ed i n fo o t n o t e 5,

s u p ra.

9 Fa ci s o n v. S ta t e

, 1 52 Ga. Ap p

. 6 4 5

, 64 7 (1 ) (2 63 SE2 d 5 23 ) (1 9 7 9 ); s ee

S a wyer v. S t a te

, 1 6 1 Ga. Ap p

. 4 7 9

, 4 8 2 ( 1 ) (2 8 8 SE2 d 1 08 ) (1 9 82 ) (“ [W ] h en t h e

k i l l i n g is cl ai m ed t o h av e b een d o n e o n acco u n t o f a reas o nab l e fear i n t he m i n d o f

t h e s lay er, t h reat s acco m p an ied b y m en aces

, th o ug h t h e l at t er d o n ot am o un t t o an

act u al as s au lt

, m ay i n s o m e i n s tan ces b e s u ffi ci en t t o aro us e t h e fears o f a reas o n ab l e

m an t hat h is l i fe i s i n d an ger o r t h at a fel o n y i s ab ou t t o b e p erp et rat ed u p o n h i m .”)

(ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ); Su g ges ted Pat t ern J ury In st ru ct i o n s, Vo l

. II: Cri m i n al Cas es

, §

3 .1 6.1 0 (4 t h ed .).

1 0 2 6 1 Ga. 6 0 5 (4 0 9 SE2 d 5 13 ) (1 9 9 1 ).

1 1 Id . at 60 6 (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ).

7As s u m i ng

, b u t n o t d eci d i n g

, t h at s u ch an i n s t ru ct i o n was a u th o ri zed b y t h e

ev i d en ce, 1 2 w e f

i n d n o rev ers i b l e erro r. Parro t t s t at es i n h i s b ri ef t hat “ [h i s ] s o l e

d efen s e i n th e i n st an t cas e was s el f-d efen s e”; fu rt h er, h e ack n o wl ed g es t h at t h e t ri al

co u rt ch arg ed t h e ju ry o n s el f-d efen s e an d o n ju st i fi cat i o n.

Th e reco rd i l l u s t rat es t h at Parro t t ’ s d efen s e was th at t h e s t at e fai l ed t o carry i t s

b u rd en o f p ro v i n g t h at t h e h o m i ci d e was no t ju s t i fi ed

. 1 3 Fu rt h er, t h e reco rd co n fi rm s

t h at t h e t ri al co u rt fu l l y an d ad eq u at el y i n s t ru ct ed t h e ju ry on ju st i fi cat i o n ; s el fd efen s e, i n cl u d i n g t he s t at u to ry l an g u ag e “ r e a s ona bly b el i ev es ” fo u n d i n OCGA § 1 6

-

3 -2 1 (a); an d o n t h e s t at e’ s b u rd en t o p ro v e b ey o nd a reas o n ab l e d o ub t t h at Parro t t ’ s

act i on s h ad n o t b een ju s t i fi ed

. 1 4 Al t h o u g h Parro t t m ai n t ai n s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt s h o u ld

h av e g i ven an ad d it i o n al ex pl an at o ry ch arg e o n t h e “ t h reat s an d m en aces ” pri n ci p l e,

“ [t ] h e gi v i n g o f an ot h erwi s e co rrect ch arg e is n o t ren d ered erro n eo u s fo r l ack o f an

1 2 T h e s t at e co u n ters

, i n t e r al i a, t h at s u ch a ch arg e was n o t au t h o ri zed b y t h e

ev i d en ce, as s ert in g a l ack o f an y “ m en ace” co m

m it t ed b y W ard

.

1 3 Pu rs u an t t o OCGA § 1 6 -3 -2 1 (a), “ a p ers o n i s j u s t i fi ed i n u s i n g fo rce wh i ch

i s i n t en d ed o r l i kel y t o cau s e d eat h o r g reat b o di l y h arm o n l y i f h e o r s he reas o n ab l y

b el i ev es th at s u ch fo rce i s n eces s ary t o prev en t deat h or g reat bo d i l y in j u ry t o h i m s el f

o r h ers el f o r a t h i rd p ers o n o r t o p rev en t t he co m m i s s i o n o f a fo rci b l e fel o n y .”

1 4 See g en eral l y Hi l l v. St a t e

, 2 9 0 Ga. 49 3

, 4 9 7 -4 98 (5 ) (7 2 2 SE2 d 7 0 8) (2 0 1 2 ).

8ad d it i o n al ex p l an at o ry ch arg e, i n t h e ab s en ce o f an ap p ro p ri at e req ues t .” 1 5 Gi v en

t h es e ci rcu m s t an ces

, Parro t t h as d em o n s t r a ted n o v i o l at i o n o f th e ru l e t h at req u i res

t h at a d efen d an t ’ s s o le d efen se m u s t b e ch arg ed ev en wh en n o t req u es t ed

. 1 6

3

. Parro t t co n t en d s th at t h e tri al co urt erred b y reject i n g hi s cl ai m o f i n effect i v e

as s i s tan ce o f t ri al co un s el . Pu rs u an t t o S t ri ckl a n d v. W a s h i ng t o n

, 1 7

[t ] o prev ai l o n a cl ai m o f i n effect i ve as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el

, a d efen d an t

m u s t s h ow t h at co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce was d efi ci en t an d t h a t t he

d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce s o p reju di ced t h e d efen d an t t h at t h ere i s a

reas o n ab l e l ik el i h o o d t h at , b u t fo r co un s el ’ s erro rs , t h e o u t co m e o f t he

t ri al wo ul d h av e b een d i fferen t

. If an ap p el l an t f a i l s t o m eet hi s o r h er

1 5 Smi th v. S t a t e

, 2 7 9 Ga. 1 7 2

, 1 7 4 (2 ) (6 1 1 SE2 d 1 ) (2 0 0 5 ) (ci tat i o n o m i t t ed ).

1 6 See id

. at 1 7 4 -1 7 5 (2 ) (h o l d i n g t h at t h e l ack o f “ an ad d i t i o n al ex p l an at o ry

ch arg e” d o es n o t am o u n t t o a v i o l at i o n o f t h e ru l e t hat t h e t ri al co u rt m u s t ch arg e s u a

s p o n te o n a d efen d an t ’ s s o l e d ef e n s e i f su p p o rt ed by ev i den ce, wh ere j u ro rs were

g i v en co m

p l e t e a nd co rrect i n s t ru ct i o ns o n t he d efen dan t ’ s s ol e d efen s e); acco rd

Ho f fl er v. S t a t e

, 2 9 2 Ga. 5 3 7

, 5 4 2 -5 4 3 (4 ) (7 3 9 SE2 d 3 6 2 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (“ [E] v en as s u m i n g

arg u en do t h at t h ere was ev i d en ce t h at [t h e defen d an t ] was n o t t h e o ri gi n al ag g res s o r

an d t h at ret reat was i n d eed i n i s s u e, t h e fai l u re t o ch arg e o n t he l ack o f du t y t o ret reat

d o es n o t m an d at e rev ers al b ec a u s e [ d efen d an t ’ s ] d efen s e o f s el f-d efen s e was fai rl y

p res en t ed t o t h e ju ry

, an d t h e ju ry was fu ll y i n s tru ct ed o n t h e l aw o f ju s t i fi cat i o n an d

s el f-d efen s e.”) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ); E d mo nd s v. S t a t e

, 2 75 G a. 45 0

, 4 5 4 (4 ) (5 6 9 SE2 d

5 3 0 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (“ [E] ven as s u m i n g t h a t r e t reat was i n i s s ue an d [t h e defen d an t ’ s ] s o l e

d efen s e was s el f-d efen se, th e fai l u re to ch arg e o n t h e l ack o f d u t y to ret reat wo u l d n ot

req u i re rev ers al becau s e [t h e d efen d an t ’ s] d ef e nse of se lf

- de f e nse w a s f a ir l y p res en t ed

t o t he ju ry .”) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

1 7 4 6 6 U. S. 6 6 8 (1 0 4 SCt 2 0 5 2 , 8 0 LE2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4 ).

9b u rd en of p ro vi n g ei t h er p ro n g o f t h e S tr ickl a n d t es t, t h e rev i ewi n g

co u rt d o es n o t h av e t o ex am i n e t h e o t h er p ro n g. 1 8

“ In rev i ewi n g th e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n

, we accep t t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fact u al fi n d i n g s an d

cred i b i l i t y d et erm i n at i o n s u n l es s cl earl y erro n eo u s, b u t we i n dep en d en t l y ap p l y t h e

l eg al p ri n ci p l es t o t h e fact s .” 1 9

(a) Parro t t co m

p l ai n s t hat h i s t ri al l awy er d i d n o t req ues t a cu rat i v e i ns t ru ct i o n

aft er t h e p ro s ecu t o r’ s al l eg ed fu t u re d an g ero u s n es s rem ark

.

Parro t t ’ s t ri al l awy er d i d n o t t es t i fy at t h e h eari n g o n m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

. “ It

i s ex t rem el y di ffi cu l t t o o v erco m e t h e p res u m p ti o n o f reas o n ab l e p ro fes s i o n al

as s i s tan ce wh ere co u n s el d oes n o t t es t i fy .” 2 0 M o reo ver, as n o t ed i n D i vi s i o n 1

, 2 1 t h e

cl o s i ng arg u m en t s were n o t t ran s cri b ed

. “ [S] p ecu l at i o n t h at erro r m ay h av e occu rred

1 8 B r i d g es v. S t at e

, 2 8 6 Ga. 5 3 5

, 53 7 (1 ) (6 9 0 SE2 d 1 3 6) (2 0 1 0 ) (ci t at i o n s an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed .)

1 9 Id . (ci t at i o ns an d p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

2 0 M a xwel l v. S t a t e

, 2 9 0 Ga. 5 7 4, 5 7 5 (2 ) (7 2 2 SE2 d 7 63 ) (2 0 1 2) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

2 1 Su p ra.

10i s i n s u ffi ci en t t o s h o w an y d efi ci en cy o n t h e part o f co u n s el

, o r p reju di ce t h erefro m

,

an d i s i n s u ffi ci en t t o s h o w rev ers i b l e erro r.” 2 2

(b ) Parro t t p os i t s t h at hi s s e l f

- d e f e n s e cl ai m cam e do wn t o wh et h er t h e ju ry

“ reas o nab l y b el iev ed ” t h a t h e n eed ed t o u s e d ead l y fo rce. He as s ert s t h at h i s t ri al

l awy er fai l ed t o p re s e n t e v id en ce of wh at h e cl ai m s s h o w ed “ t h reat s an d m en aces

m ad e b y t h e deceas ed t oward s [h i m ] ” an d ev id en ce o f wh at h e c l a i m s s h o wed

“ g o ad i n g an d t au n t i n g en du red b y [h i m ] ri gh t b efo re t h e s h o o t in g .” Fu rt h er, Parro t t

co m p l ai n s t h at hi s t ri al l awy er d i d n ot re q u e s t a ju ry i ns t ru ct i o n o n t he p ri n ci p l e

co n cern in g t h reat s an d m en aces

. 2 3

At t h e heari n g on m o t i o n fo r n e w t ri al

, Parro t t ad d uced ev i d en ce o f t wo

en co un t ers h e h ad wi th W ard p ri o r t o t h e day o f t h e s h o ot i n g, an d ev i d en ce o f

co n ten t i o u s p h o n e cal ls h e (Parro t t ) recei v ed o n t h e d ay o f t he s h o o t i n g . Reg ard i n g

t h e fi rs t s u ch en co u n t er, P a r r o t t s h o wed at th e n ew t ri al heari n g t h at

, ab o u t s i x to

ei g h t week s b efo re t h e s ho o t i n g, W ard ap p eared at h i s (Parro t t ’ s ) h om e at ab o u t 3 : 0 0

a.m

. l o o k i n g fo r h is (W ard ’ s) g i rl fri en d

. Fi n di n g her t here, W ard b ecam e an g ry an d

2 2 No r t o n v. S ta t e

, 2 9 3 Ga. 3 32

, 3 39 (7 ) (d ) (7 4 5 SE2 d 6 3 0 ) (2 0 13 ) (ci tat i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

2 3 See Di v i s i o n 2 , s u p ra.

11an en s u i n g v erb al al t ercat i o n d rew t h e at t en t i o n o f Parro tt ’ s gran d fat h er wi t h wh o m

Parro t t w as t hen l i v in g. Th e g ran d fat h er d em an ded th at W ard an d h i s g i rl fri en d l eav e.

As t he t wo co m

p l i ed

, W ard s ai d t o Parro t t s o m et hi n g t o t he effect : “ I’ m g oi n g t o g et

y o u .” As Parro t t r e c o ll ect ed at t h e n ew t ri al h eari n g

, “ [W ard ] was m ad wh en m y

g ran d d ad d y

t o l d h i m h e h ad t o l eav e.”

Reg ard i n g a seco n d en co u n t er, Parro t t t es ti fi ed at t h e n ew t ri al h eari n g t h at

,

ab o ut a week b efo re t h e s ho o t i n g :

[W ard ] was d ri v i n g a t ru ck

. An d h e w as co m in g o u t t h e d ri v eway

. He

s ai d s om et h i ng b u t h e w as d ri v i n g fas t

, b u t I d i d n ’ t s ay an y t h i n g t o h i m

.

I ju s t go t o u t o f t h e way

. Th e way he was d ri vi n g, I fi g u red I wo ul d ju s t

m o v e o u t o f h i s way

. Bu t I d o n ’ t k n o w w h at he s ai d

. He h o l l ered t o

s o m e b o d y

, b u t I d o n ’ t k n o w wh at h e s ai d

. . . . I w as s cared b u t I d o n ’t

k n o w wh at hi s i n ten t i o ns w e re. I do n ’ t kn o w i f he was ju s t t ry i n g t o

s care m e o r I d o n’ t t h i n k h e was t ry i n g t o k i l l m e.

To ev i n ce at t h e n ew t ri al h eari n g th at m u l t i pl e p h o n e cal l s h e recei ved o n t h e

d ay o f th e sh o o ti n g were rel ev an t t o h is d e f e n s e, Parro t t t es t i fi ed t o t h e fo l l o wi n g.

St art in g at ab o u t 4: 3 0 p

. m

., Parro t t b eg a n recei v i n g cal l s fro m s ev eral i n di v i d u al s

,

i n cl u d i n g : (i ) W ard ; (i i ) t h ei r m u t u al fri en d

, wh o w ou l d u l t i m at el y b e wi t h Parro t t at

t h e t i m e o f t h e s h o o t i n g ; an d (i i i ) t h at (m u t u al ) fri en d ’ s gi rl fri en d

, wh os e d ri v eway

wo u l d b e t h e s i t e o f t h e s h oo t i n g

. Parro t t reco u n t ed t h at

, wh en t h e t el ep h on e cal l s

12b eg an

, ev en t h e m u tu al fri en d was cu rs i n g h i m an d say i n g

, “ I am g o i n g to co m e d o wn

t h ere an d b eat y o u u p”; t h at du ri n g each cal l

, h e h ad t o l d t h e cal l er t o l eav e h i m al o n e;

t h at al th o u g h h e wo u l d h an g u p , h e wo u l d i m m ed iat el y g et an o t her cal l ; an d t h at i n

t h e fi n al ph o n e cal l

, t h e m ut u al fri en d h ad p ro p o s ed s o m et h in g t o th e effect

, “ [Y] o u

al l are fri en d s , we n eed t o wo rk t h i s o u t

. . . . I’ m g o n n a co m e t h ere an d we wi l l t al k

ab o ut i t . . . an d t ry

t o wo rk i t o u t .”

Parro t t m ai n t ai n s o n a p p e a l t h at h i s t ri al l awy er’ s perfo rm an ce was d efi ci en t

i n p res en t i n g a d efen s e. W i th o u t ev i d en ce o f th o s e t wo ci t ed en co u n ters w i t h W ard

,

wi t h o u t ev i d en ce o f t h e m u l t i p l e p h o ne cal ls

, an d wi t h o ut a s p eci fi c ju ry i ns t ru ct i o n

o n “ t h r eat s an d m en aces ,” Parro t t cl ai m s t h at t h e ju ry was n o t ab l e t o “ f u l l y

u n d ers t an d ” wh at was o n h i s m i n d wh en h e l eft h i s res i d en ce wi t h a g un an d

, fu rt h er,

was l eft wi t h o u t an y

l eg al m ech an is m

t o as s es s h i s cl ai m

o f s el f-d efen s e.

Th ere i s n o m eri t i n Parro t t ’ s as s ert i o n t hat h is tri al co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce was

d efi ci en t as al l eg ed

. T h e j u ry wa s ap p ri sed t h at Parro t t h ad b eco m e fearfu l o f W ard

.

In ad d i t i o n t o t h e tri al ev i d en ce reci t ed ab o v e, t he ju ry was p res en t ed t h e fo l l o wi n g.

Co n cern i n g t h e n i gh t W ard d is co v ered h i s g i rl fri en d at Parro t t ’ s res i d en ce, Parro t t ’ s

t ri al l awy er el i ci t ed t es t im o ny fro m W ard ’ s fo rm er g irl fri en d t h a t

, w hen W ard

co n fro n ted h er ab o u t b ei n g t h ere, Parro t t “ ju s t ran

, h e fl ew o u t.” An d as s h e arg u ed

13wi t h W ard

, Par r o t t ’s g ran d fat h er i n t erject ed rem ark s to W ard

, wh o t h en b eg an

“ cu s s i n g t h e g ran d fat h er.”

Fu rt her, d efen s e co u n s el h i g h li g h ted o n cro s s-ex am ina tion of the m u t u al fri en d

t h at , o n t h e d ay

o f t h e s h o o t i n g , t h e m

u t u al fri en d rep eat ed ly t o l d Parro t t t h at W ard

wan ted t o t al k t o h i m ; t h at Parro t t h ad refu s ed t o g o to W ard ’ s h o u s e b ecau s e h e

feared b ei n g at t ack ed b y W ard ; an d t h at o n l y aft er t h e fri en d ag r e e d t o a c co m p an y

Parro t t t o W ard ’ s h ou s e, d i d Parro t t ag ree t o m eet wi th W ard

.

M o reo v er, th e i n v e stiga

t or w h o c o nduc te d P a r

r ott’ s p olic e i nte r

v i ew el ab o rat ed

at t ri al t h at Parro tt h ad b eg u n h i s p ol i ce s t at em en t by reco u nt i n g t h at

, pri o r t o t h e

s h o o ti n g

, h e (Parro tt ) h ad recei v ed n um ero u s t el ep h on e cal l s fro m h i s an d W ard ’ s

fri en ds wan t in g h i m

t o m eet wi t h W ard t o res o l v e t h e d i s co rd creat ed b y h i s s ex u al

en co un t er wi t h W ard ’ s g i rl fri en d ; t h at i n on e s u ch cal l

, Pa r r o t t h a d b een t o l d t h at

Wa r d w a n t e d t o “ b eat h i s as s ”; t h at Parro t t h ad t o l d t h e cal lers t hat h e was afrai d

W ard wo u l d h u rt hi m ; t h at al t ho u g h h e h ad in i t i al l y refu s ed t h ei r rep eat ed req u es t s

t o m eet wi t h W ard

, P a r r o t t w as u l t i m at el y p ers u ad ed to g o wh en a fri en d ag reed to

acco m pan y h i m t o W ard ’ s h o u se; an d t h at

, w h en h e l eft h i s res i d en ce t o m eet W ard

,

h e t o o k h i s ri fl e wi t h h i m

.

14Ad d it i on al l y

, P a rro t t ’ s t ri al l awy er el i ci ted t es t i m on y fro m an o t h er s t at e’ s

wi t n es s t h at

, p ri o r t o t h e sh o o ti n g

, Parro tt h ad beco m e aware t h at W ard o wn ed s ev eral

fi rearm s . An d wh en h e t o ok th e s t an d

, Parro t t t es t i fi ed t h at h e h ad b ro u g h t t h e ri fl e

wi t h h im b ecau s e h e h ad been t o l d t hat W ard h ad b een s h owi n g o ff h i s g u ns earl i er

t h at d ay

.

Hen ce, co nt rary t o Parro t t ’ s cl ai m on ap p eal

, t h e ju ry was pres en t ed ev i d en ce

fro m wh i ch i t co u ld h av e co n cl u d ed t h at h e was fearfu l o f bei n g h arm ed b y W ard ; t h e

ju ry was p res en t ed ev i den ce t h at s u ch fearfu l nes s h ad p ro m p ted h i m t o h av e t h e g u n

wi t h h i m wh en h e m et w i t h W ard ; an d t h e ju ry was ap t l y in s t ru ct ed o n Parro t t ’ s cl ai m

o f s el f-d efen s e. 2 4

(c) Parro t t co m

p lai n s t h at h is t ri al lawy er fai l ed t o i n t ro d u ce d u ri n g t h e g u i l t

i n n o cen ce p h as e o f h is tri al cert ai n ev i d en ce of h i s f a m i l y

, ed u cat i o n

, an d

p s y ch o lo g i cal b ack g ro u n d

.

2 4 See Ro p er v. S t a t e

, 2 8 1 Ga. 8 7 8

, 8 8 1 (2 ) (6 44 SE2 d 1 20 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (“ Becau s e

t h e [ju st i fi cat i o n / s el f-d efen s e] ch arg e t h at was g i v en was ad ju s t ed to the ev i d en ce an d

was n ot erro n eo u s l y i n co m p l et e, [ap p el l an t’ s ] defen s e co u n sel was n o t i neffect i v e in

h er fai l u re ei t h er t o o b

j e c t o r t o req ues t a m o re ex p an s i v e in s t ru ct i o n.”) (ci t at i o n

o m it t ed ); McDa n iel v. S t a te

, 2 7 9 Ga. 8 0 1

, 80 3 (2 ) (c) (6 2 1 SE2 d 42 4 ) (2 0 0 5 ) (“ Th e

d eci s i o n s o n wh ich wi t n es s es t o cal l

, wh et h er a n d h ow t o co n d u ct cro s s ex am i n at i o n s

,

. . . an d al l o t h er s t rat eg i es an d t act i cal d eci s i o n s are t h e e x c l u s i v e pro v i n ce o f t h e

l awy er aft er co n su l tat i o n wi t h h i s cl i en t .”) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ); acco rd Ren der v. S t a t e

, 2 8 8 Ga. 4 2 0

, 4 2 4 (2 ) (b ) (7 04 SE2 d 7 6 7 ) (2 0 1 1 ).

15On m o t i on fo r n ew t ri al

, Parro tt p res en t ed th e tes t im on y o f a p s y ch o l o g i s t wi th

wh o m h e h ad m e t f

o r a h al f-d ay s es s i on i n 2 01 2 at t h e p ri s o n wh ere Parro t t was

i n carcerat ed

. Th e p sy ch o l o g i s t w as q u al i fi ed at t h e h eari n g t o g i ve h i s o p i ni o n s i n t h e

areas o f ch i l d h o o d/ ad o les cen t fo ren s i c p s y ch o l o g y an d t rau m a. T he ps y ch o l o g i s t

reco u n ted t h at

, d u ri n g t h ei r h al f-d ay s es si o n

, he i n t erv i ewed Parro t t ab o u t h i s fam i l y

h i s t o ry an d ad m in i s t ered s ev eral t es ts rel at i n g t o Parro t t ’s acad em i c fu n ct i o n,

i n t el l i g en ce, an d p ers o nal i t y

. Th e p s y ch ol og i st d es cri b ed Parro t t ’ s fam i l y h i s t o ry as

“ [ v ]ery ch eck ered ” an d “ ex t rem el y di s ru p t i v e”

– n o t in g t h at Parro t t h ad l iv ed wi th

s ev eral d i fferen t rel at i v es ; t h at h e h ad n ot kn o wn h i s fat her’s i d e n t i t y fo r a n u m

b er

o f y ears ; t h at h e h ad ex peri en ced “ d i ffi cu l t i es ” wi t h v ari o u s “ s t ep fat h er fi gu res ”; t h at

h e h ad l iv ed i n fo s t er care; an d t h at wh en h e fo un d h i s fat her, h e l i v ed wi t h h i m fo r

a few y ears u n t i l h i s fat h er d i ed o f can cer. Th e p s y ch o lo g is t d et erm i n ed fro m Parro t t ’ s

s ch o ol reco rd s t hat h e h ad b een “ s een as v ery d i ffi cu l t t o han d l e”; th at h e h ad a “ h ard

t i m e g et t i n g al on g wi t h o t h er p eo p l e”; t h at h e h ad d em o n s t rat ed “ i n at t e n t i v e ” an d

“ d i sru p ti v e” b eh av i o r; an d t h at h e was u l t i m at el y rem o v ed fro m g en eral cl as s es an d

p l aced i n s p eci al ed ucat i o n cl as s es

– n o t becau s e o f i n t el lect u al di s ab il i t y

, b ut

b ecau s e o f b eh av i o ral i s s u es

. Th e p s y ch o l o g is t as cert ai ned

, b as ed u p o n h i s o wn

t es t i n g

, th at “ [Parro t t] has

, at l eas t

, av erag e IQ.” Du ri n g t h ei r s es s io n

, Parro t t t o l d t h e

16p s y ch o lo g i s t t h at h e h ad b een to p s y ch i at ri c ho s p i t al s fo r d ep res s i o n an d cu t t i n g h i s

wri s t s

. Th e p s y ch o l o g i s t t es t i fi ed t h at Parro t t ’ s m ed i cal r eco rd s ho wed t h at h e h ad

b een p res cri bed an an t i dep res san t

. Th e ps y ch o l o g i s t des cribe d P a r r ott as “ ju m p y ” an d

“ v ery s u s p i ci o u s o f o t h er p eo p l e an d s cared of o t h er p eo p l e.” T h e ps y ch o l o g i s t

t es t i fi ed

, “ I cert ai n l y s ee [Parro t t ] as p aran o i d

. I do n ’ t k n ow t h at he i s p s y ch o t i c, b ut

I t h i n k h e h as a p aran o i d p ers on al i t y .” Th e ps y ch o l o g is t el ab o rat ed

, “ [Parr o t t ] was

p rem at u re as a b ab y

. So h e was al way s

, p erh ap s

, s h o rt er t h an m an y o t h ers

. ”

Ac c o r d i n g t o th e p s y ch o lo gi s t, Parro t t was “ very s en s i t i v e ab o u t h i s [s t at u re]

. He

feel s v ery i n s ecu re aro u n d o t h er p eo p l e. Th at k i n d of p ers o n us u al l y wan t s t o h av e

a weap o n s o m ewh ere cl o s e t o th em t o p ut t h em m o r e o n an eq u al s cal e wi t h o t h ers

aro u n d t h em . So h e i s v ery m u ch o n t h e d efen si v e.”

Th o u g h Parro t t arg u es t h at h i s t ri al l awy er s h o u l d h av e d efen d ed h i m bas ed o n

t h at ev i d en ce o f h i s fam i l y , ed u cat i o n , an d p s y ch ol o g i cal b ack g ro un d

, “ [s ] u ch aft er

t h e fact d i s ag reem en t s ab ou t t ri al co u n s el ’ s ap p ro ach t o t h e cas e . .

. d o n ot am o u nt

t o a s h o w i n g o f i neffect i v e as s is t an ce o f t ri al co u n sel .” 2 5

W h i l e ot h er co u ns el

, h ad t h ey rep res en t e d a ppe llan t

, m ay hav e ex erci s ed

d i fferen t ju dg m en t

, t h e fact t h at t ri al co un s el ch o s e t o t ry t h e cas e i n th e

2 5 Reed v. S t a t e , 2 8 5 Ga. 6 4 , 6 6 (6 ) (6 7 3 SE2 d 2 46 ) (2 0 0 9 ).

17m a n ner i n wh ich i t was t ri ed

, an d m ad e cert ai n d i ffi cu l t d eci s i o n s

reg ard i n g t h e d efen s e t act i cs t o b e em p lo y ed wi t h w hi ch ap pel l an t an d

h i s p res en t co u n s el no w d i s ag ree, d o es no t req u ire a fi nd i n g t h a t th e

re p r e s en t at io n bel o w was s o in ad eq u at e as t o am ou n t to a d en i al o f

effect i v e as s is t an ce o f co u n s el

. 2 6

Parro t t h as fai l ed t o dem o n s t rat e t h at h i s t r i a l c o u n s el p erfo rm ed d efi ci en t l y b y n ot

i n t ro du ci n g s u ch ev i d en ce. 2 7

(d ) Parro t t co m

p l ai ns t h at h i s t ri al l awy er d id n o t i n t ro du ce at t he s en t en ci n g

p h as e o f h i s t ri al t h e ci t ed ev id en ce co n cern i n g h i s f a m i l y

, ed u cat i o n

, an d

p s y ch o lo g i cal b ack g ro u n d

. 2 8

At t h e s en t en ci n g heari n g

, wh en t h e co urt as k ed t h e res p ect i v e p art i es fo r

ev i d en ce i n ag grav at i o n /m i ti g at i o n o f p u n i s h m en t

, t h e p ro s ecu t or res p o nd ed t h at t h e

s t at e h ad no n e. Parro t t ’ s l awy er cal l ed t o t h e s t an d Parro t t ’ s g ran d fat her, wh o t es t i fi ed

2 6 Ba u gh v. S t a t e

, 2 9 3 Ga. 5 2

, 5 4 (2 ) (7 4 3 SE2 d 4 07 ) (2 01 3 ) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ).

2 7 See fu rt h er Di v i s io n 3 (b ), s u p ra.

2 8 See g en eral l y G a it h er v. Ca n n i da

, 2 5 8 Ga. 55 7

, 5 58 -5 5 9 (2 ) (3 72 SE2 d 4 2 9 )

(1 9 8 8) (an al y zi n g , wi t hi n t he co n t ex t o f an ap peal fro m t h e g ran t of h ab eas co rp u s

,

t h at “ t h e st an dard s s et fo rt h i n S t r i ckl a n d

, s u p ra,

. . . t ech ni cal l y m ay no t ap p ly ” t o t h e

s en t en ci n g p h as e o n a no n -d eat h -p en al t y cas e, t h en reas o n i n g t h at t h e s t an dard s can

“ b e em p lo y ed i n a cas e s u ch as t h e p res en t o n e, in wh i ch t here i s a r a n g e i n t h e

p o s s i b l e s en t en ces t o b e im p o s ed

, h en c e a co rres po n di n g d u t y o n co u n s el t o s eek

wh at ev er m i t i g at i o n i n s en t en ci n g m ay b e reas on ab l y

av ai l ab l e an d ap p ro p ri at e”).

18t h at Parro t t’ s fat h er had d ied

, an d t hat h e h ad t ak en care o f Parro tt s i n c e 2 0 0 3

.

Parro t t ’ s g ran d fat h er s u m m ari zed th at “ [Parro t t ] n ev er had a s h ak e o r n o th i n g ” an d

as k ed t h e co u rt fo r len i en cy i n s en t en ci n g

. Parro t t ’ s l awy er t h en rem i n ded t h e co u rt

t h at Parro t t “ was 1 6 y ears o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e cri m e an d o n l y an ei g h t h g rad e

ed u cat i o n ”; fu rt h er, Parro tt ’ s l awy er as k ed t h e c o u r t t o “ s h o w s o m e m ercy o n

[Parro t t] b as ed on h i s ag e an d th e fact s an d ci rcu m s tan ces o f th e cas e as yo u h eard

t h em .”

Th e ap p ro p ri at e t es t fo r wh et h er [Parro t t ’ s ] co u n s el was d efi ci en t

i s wh et h er s o m e reas o n ab l e l aw y er at t h e t ri al co u l d h av e act ed

, i n th e

ci rcu m s t an ces

, as d efen s e co u n s el act ed

. . . . W e u n d ers t an d t h at p o s t

co n v i ct i o n co u n s el wi ll al m o s t al way s b e ab l e t o i d en ti fy s o m e p o ten t i al

m i t i g at i n g ev id en ce n o t pres en t ed

. . . an d t h at t h i s al o n e d o es no t ren d er

t ri al co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce d efi ci en t

. 2 9

Deci s i o n s ab o ut wh i ch wi t n es s es t o cal l, i f an y

, an d w h en t o cal l t h em are m at t ers o f

s t rat eg y an d t h u s “ d o n o t am o u n t t o d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce u nl es s th ey are s o

2 9 Hea d v. Ca r r

, 2 73 Ga. 6 1 3

, 6 2 5 (4 ) (C) (3 ) (5 4 4 SE2 d 4 0 9 ) (2 0 0 1 ) (ci t at i on s

an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); s ee Za n t v. Mo o n , 2 6 4 Ga. 9 3 , 9 7 -9 8 (2 ) (4 40 SE2 d 6 5 7 )

(1 9 9 4) (rei t erat i n g t h at

, “ i n co n s id eri n g i n effect iv e as si s t an ce o f co u n sel cl ai m s

,

‘ [rev i ewi n g co u rt s ] ad d res s n ot wh at i s pru d en t o r ap p ro p ri at e

, b u t o n l y wh at i s

co n st i t u t io n al l y co m

p el l ed ’ ”), q u o t i n g B ur

g er v. Kemp

, 4 8 3 U. S. 7 7 6

, 7 9 4 (IV) (1 0 7

SCt 3 11 4 , 9 7 LE2 d 6 3 8) (1 98 7 ).

19u n reas o nab l e t h at n o co m pet en t at to rn ey wo u l d hav e m ad e t h e m u n d er s i m i l ar

ci rcu m s t an ces

. ” 3 0 M o reo v er, “ a fai r as s es s m en t of at t o rn ey p erfo rm an ce req u i res t h at

ev ery effo rt b e m ad e to el i m i n at e t h e d i s t o rt i n g effect s o f hi nd s i g h t

, t o reco n s t ru ct t h e

ci rcu m s t an ces o f co u n s el ’ s ch al l en g ed co nd u ct

, an d t o ev al uat e t h e co n d u ct fro m

co u ns el ’ s p ers pect iv e at t h e t im e.” 3 1

Here, at t h e p os t -co n v ict i o n h eari n g

, 3 2 t h e t ri al co u rt h eard t h e ev i d en ce t h at

Parro t t cl ai m s s h o u l d h av e b een i n tro d u ced i n m i ti g at i o n

, y et s u m m ari l y ru l ed t h at i t

p res en t ed n o b as i s fo r co n cl ud i n g th at t ri al co un s el was i n effect i v e. Parro t t has fai l ed

t o d em o n s t rat e t h at , i n s o ru l in g , t h e t ri al co u rt co m m it t ed rev ers i b l e erro r. 3 3

3 0 M i l l er v. S t a t e

, 2 9 6 Ga. 9

, 1 2 (4 ) (a) ( 7 6 4 SE2 d 82 3 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (ci t at i o n s an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

3 1 W r i g h t v. S t at e

, 28 5 G a. 4 2 8, 4 3 5 (6 ) (a) (6 7 7 SE2 d 8 2 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (ci t at i o n

o m it t ed ).

3 2 As n o t ed ab o v e, d u ri n g p o s t -co n v i ct i o n pro ceed i n gs

, th e t ri al co u rt v acat ed

an i n i t ial s en t en ce o n t h e ag g rav at ed as s au l t ch arg e, m erg i n g t h at o ffen s e i n t o t h e

v o l u n t ary m an s l au g h t er fo r p urp o s es o f s en ten ci n g

. Parro tt m ak es no co n t en t i o n t h at

t h e sen t en ces t h u s i m

p o sed (fo r v o l u n t ary m an s l au g h t er an d p o s ses s i o n o f a fi rearm

d u ri n g t h e co m

m i s s i on o f a cri m e) fel l o u t s i d e t h ei r res p ect i v e s t at u t o ry l i m i t s

.

3 3 See Ba i nes v. S t a te

, 2 0 1 Ga. Ap p . 3 5 4

, 3 5 5 (4 11 SE2 d 9 5 ) (1 99 1 ); s ee al s o

Za n t

, s u p ra at 9 7 -9 8 (2 ) (d et erm i ni n g t h at p et i ti o n er fai l ed to s h ow a reas o n ab l e

p ro b ab i l i t y t h at

, i f ad du ced at t h e s en t en ci n g p h as e o f t h e t ri al

, p s y ch iat r i c an d

b ack gro un d ev i d en ce p res en t ed i n t h e hab eas h eari ng wo u ld h av e res ul t ed i n a l i g h t er

s en t en ce, wh ere s u c h ev i d en ce d i d “ n ot pai n t an en ti rel y s y m p at het i c p ict u re o f

20Ju d

g men t a f f i r m ed . El l i n g t o n , P. J., a n d McMi l l i a n , J., co n cu r

.

[p et i ti o n er] ,”b ut s h o w ed h e h ad b een “ in t ro ub l e as a ju v en i le,” an d wh ere ev i d en ce

al l o wed fo r fi n d in g t hat “ h e was ev en m o re d an g ero us t h an th e o rd i nary cri m i n al ”);

H a n ce v. Kemp

, 2 5 8 Ga. 64 9

, 6 5 8 (2 ) (d ) (3 7 3 SE2 d 18 4 ) (1 9 8 8 ) (d et erm i n i n g t h a t

p e t i t i o n er fai l ed t o es t ab l i s h req u i s i t e preju d ice fo r fai l i n g t o ad d u ce as m i t i g at i o n

e v i den ce t h e t es t i m o n y o f a p s y ch o l og i s t

, wh o s e t es t i m o n y “ m ay h av e o ffe r e d a

p l au s i b l e co n t ri b u t i n g fact o r (m en t al an d p h y s i cal ab us e i n fl i ct ed u p o n h i m an d h i s

s i st er b y h i s s t ep fat h er) fo r [p et i t i o n er’ s ] p ers on a lity d isor de r

, b u t [t h e p s y ch ol o g i s t ’ s ]

d es cri p t io n s o f [p et i t i o n er’ s] ‘ m a r ke d pa r a no i a,’ ‘ h o m i ci d al i d eat i o n ,’ ag g res s i v en es s

an d ‘ h o s t i l i t y ’ wo uld ha v e g iv en t h e p ro s ecu t o r fu rt h er g ro u n d s t o arg u e [p et i t i o n er’ s ]

d an gero us nes s ”); Ma l lo n v. St at e

, 2 6 6 Ga. Ap p

. 3 9 4

, 3 9 7 -3 9 8 (3 ) (5 9 7 SE2 d 4 9 7 )

(2 0 0 4); Co n kl i n v. Sch o f iel d

, 3 6 6 F3 d 1 1 9 1

, 1 2 0 4 (III) (B) (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 4 )

(“ [C] o u n s el n eed n o t p res en t al l av ai l ab l e m i ti g at i n g ci rcu m s t an ce ev i d en ce i n o rd er

fo r co u n s el ’ s co n d u ct t o b e d eem ed ef f e c t i v e at t h e s en t en ci n g s tag e. In deed

, t h e

[ U n i t e d St at es ] Su p rem e Co u rt an d t h is Co u rt in a n um b er of cas es h av e h el d

co u ns el ’ s p erfo rm an ce t o b e co n s t i t u ti o n al l y s u ffi ci en t wh en no m i t i g a t i n g

ci r cu ms ta n ce evi d

en ce a t a l l wa s i n tr o d

u ced

, even t h o u g h s uch evi d en ce

. . . wa s

a va il a b l e .”) (ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ; em p h as i s i n o ri g i n al ).

21