2 9 6 Ga . 5 24

F INAL COP Y

S 1 4 A1 3 72

. ANDERS ON v . THE S TATE.

N AHMI AS , Ju stic e

.

Ap p e lla n t An to n io A n d e rso n wa s c o n v ic te d o f m a lic e m u rd e r a n d o th e r

c rim e s in c on n e c tio n with th e sh o o tin g d e a th o f Ma r c u s Ke y

. O n a p p e a l, h e

a rg u e s th a t th e tri al ju d g e re fe rre d to h is tria l c o u n se l an d th e p ro se c u to r in a

m a n n e r th a t c re a te d a n im p re ssio n o f fa v oritism to w a rd th e S ta te ’s a tto rn e y , a n d

t h a t his tria l c o u n se l pro v id e d in e ffe c tiv e a ssista n c e b y fa ilin g to o bje c t to t h e

tria l ju d g e ’s re m a rk s. We a ffirm

. 1

1

. Vie we d in th e l i g h t mo st fa v o ra ble to th e v e rd ic ts, th e e v id e n c e

p re se nte d a t tria l sh owe d th e fo llo win g. On th e e v e nin g o f F e bru a ry 2 4

, 2 0 0 5

,

1 The crimes occurred on F ebruary 24, 2005. On J uly 2 9, 2 005, a F u lton County g rand jury
returned indictments ag ainst Appellant and Major Dug g an, c harg ing Appellant with malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery

, hijacking a motor vehicle, ag g ravated a ssault, p ossession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a f irearm during a felony

. Appellant a nd Dug g an were tried
tog ether from November 13 to 2 1, 2006 before J udg e Marvin S. Arring ton. The jury found each
defendant g uilty of a l l counts for which he was indicted. Appellant’s felony murder verdict was vacated as a matter of la w , an d h i s ag g ravated assault count merg ed into the malice murder
conviction. Appellant was sentenced to serve l i f e i n p r i s o n for murder, ten consecutive y ears f or armed robbery

, ten concurrent y ears for hijacki n g a motor vehicle, five c oncurrent y ears f or possession of a f

irearm by a c onvicted felon, and five y e ars on p robation f o r p ossession of a firearm during the commission o f a felony

. A ppellant filed a motion for new trial on N o vember 28, 2006,
which he amended o n September 24, 2012 after being appointed n e w counsel a nd a fter the trial judg e retired. After a h earing

, the successor trial judg e denied the motion on J anuary 15, 2 013. Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal, and the case was d ocketed to this Court for the September 2014 term
and submitted for decision on the briefs. Dug g a n’s convictions were affirmed on appeal more than five y ears ag o. See Dug g an v. State, 285 Ga. 363 (677 SE2d 92) (2009).Ap p e lla n t a n d h is c o -d e fe n d a n t Ma jo r D u g g a n a rra ng e d to m e e t Ke y in a n

a p a rtm e nt c o m

ple x p a rk in g lo t to b u y a q u a rte r p o u n d o f m a riju a n a

. Ap p e lla n t

a n d Du g g a

n wa lk e d to th e m e e tin g sp o t, an d wh e n Ke y a rriv e d in h is Ch e v ro le t

Ta h o e , Ap p e lla n t g o t in to th e b a c k se a t a n d Du g ga n g o t in to th e pa sse n g e r se a t.

Bo th Ap pe lla n t a n d Ke y h a d g u n s. S h o rtly a fte r Ap p e lla n t a nd Du gg an g o t in to

th e Ta h o e , se v e ra l g u n sh o ts we re fire d

.

Willie S h e ffie ld

, wh o ha d c o n ta c te d Ke y fo r Ap p e lla n t a n d Du g g a n to se t

u p th e d ru g d e a l, wa s sta n d in g n e arb y

. S h e ffie ld h e a rd th e g u nsh o ts a n d h e a rd

Ap p e lla n t sa y “ g e t th e f* * k o u t o f th e tru c k ” b e fo re Ke y fe ll fro m th e Ta h o e to

th e gro u n d

. Ap p e lla n t g o t o u t o f th e b a c k se a t h o ld in g a .3 2 -c a l i b e r re v o lv e r

a n d to ld S h e ffie ld to g e t b a c k

. Du g g a n sa id

, “No th in g p e rso n a l. Ju st b u sin e ss.”

Ap p e lla n t th e n g o t in th e d riv e r’s se a t o f th e Ta h o e , and h e a nd Du gg a n d ro v e

a wa y

. Th e Ta h o e wa s fo u n d o n fire ab o u t f i v e mi l e s awa y

. Ke y d ie d o n th e

sc e n e fro m th re e g u n sh o t wo u n d s, two to h i s b a ck a n d on e to th e b a c k o f h is

rig h t sh o u ld e r n e a r h is n e c k

. All th re e b u lle ts w e r e f i r e d fro m th e sa m e .3 2

-

c a lib e r C o lt re v o lv e r. Ab o u t t w o w e e k s la te r, Ap p e lla n t a nd Du g g a n tu rn e d

th e m se lv e s in a n d we re a rre ste d

.

At tria l, th e d e fe n se th e o ry wa s th a t A p p e l l an t sh o t Ke y in se lf-d e fe n se

.

2Du g ga n te stifie d th a t h e a n d Ke y we re h a g g lin g a b o u t p ric e in th e Ta h o e wh e n

Ap p e lla n t su d de n ly sa id

, “ F * * k a ll th is,” a n d b o th Ap p e lla nt a n d Ke y d re w th e ir

g u n s. Ap pe lla nt d id n o t te stify

.

Ap p e lla n t d o e s n ot c h a l l e n g e th e le g a l su ffic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e

su p p o rtin g h is c o n v ic tio n s. Ne v e rth e le ss, in a c c o rd a n c e with th is Co u rt’s

p ra c tic e in mu r d e r c a s e s, we h a v e re v ie w e d th e re c o rd a n d c o n c lu d e th a t th e

e v id e n c e p re se n te d a t tria l a n d su m m a riz e d a b o ve wa s su ffic ie n t to a

u th o riz e a

ra tio n a l ju ry to r e

je c t Ap p e lla n t’s c la im o f se lf-d e fe n se a n d to fin d him g u ilty

b e y o n d a re a so n a

b le d o u b t o f th e c rim e s fo r wh ic h h e wa s c o n v ic te d

. S e e

Ja c k so n v

. Virg in ia

, 44 3 U. S

. 3 0 7

, 31 9 (9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

S e e a lso S ifu e n te s v

. S ta te

, 2 9 3 Ga

. 4 4 1

, 4 4 3 (7 4 6 S E2 d 1 2 7 ) ( 2 0 1 3 ) ( “ W h ile

[a p p e lla n t] m a in ta in s h e a c te d in d e fe n se o f h im se lf a n d h is b ro th e r, [i] t wa s fo r

th e ju ry to d e te rm in e th e c re d ib ility o f th e w itn e sse s an d to re so lv e a n y c o n flic ts

o r in c o n siste n c ie s in th e e v id e n c e .” (c ita tio n s a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d )).

2

. In h is first e n u m e ra tio n o f e rro r, Ap p e lla n t a rg u e s th a t th e tria l ju d ge

p re ju d ic e d th e ju ry a g a in st h im b y de mo n stra tin g p a rtia lity to wa rd th e S ta te ’s

a tto rn e y a nd a g a in st h is tria l c o u n se l. Th e re c ord sh o ws th a t, in th e p re se n c e o f

th e ju ry a n d b e fo re it re tu rn e d its v e rd ic ts, th e tria l ju d g e re fe rre d to th e

3p ro se c u to r, Clin t Ru c k e r, a s e ith e r “ Mr. Ru c k er ” ( 2 7 tim e s) o r “ Clin t” (2 0

tim e s). Th e ju d g e sim ila rly re fe rre d t o A p p e lla n t’s tria l c o u n se l, Me lissa

Re d m on , a s “ Ms. Re d m o n ” (six tim e s) a n d “ Me lissa ” (th re e tim e s). Th e ju d g e

a lso c a lle d h e r “ Yo u n g La d y ” or “Ms. Yo u ng L a d y ” fo u r tim e s a n d “ Miss

Co n flic t” two tim e s. 2 Du rin g t h e tria l, h o we ve r, Ap p e lla n t d id no t ob je c t to

th e se re m a

rk s by th e tria l ju d g e o r file a m o tio n fo r th e ju dg e ’s re c usa l. He

th e re fo re fa ile d to p re se rv e th is a rg u m e n t fo r re v ie w o n a p pe a l. S e e S ta c e y v

.

S ta te

, 2 9 2 Ga

. 8 3 8

, 8 4 3 (7 4 1 S E2 d 8 8 1 ) (2 0 1 3 ) ( “ Ge o r g i a ‘h a s lo n g fo llo we d

th e c o n te m

p o ra n e o u s o b

je c tio n ru le

, wh ic h pro v id e s th a t c o u n se l m u st m a k e a

p ro p e r o b je c tio n o n th e re c o rd a t th e e a rlie st p o ssib le tim e to p re se rv e fo r re v ie w

th e p o in t o f e rro r.’” (c ita tio n o m itte d )); S ta te v

. Ha rg is, 2 9 4 Ga

. 8 1 8

, 8 2 1 (7 5 6

S E2 d 5 2 9 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (h o ld in g th a t if a re c usa l m o tio n is n o t file d with in fiv e d a y s

o f th e m ov a nt’s first le a rn in g o f th e a lle g e d g r o u n d s fo r d isq u a lific a tio n , “ th e

q u e stio n o f d isq u a lific a tio n is n o t p re se rv e d fo r a pp e lla te re v ie w” ).

3

. Ap pe a rin g to re c o g n iz e th is d e fe c t in h i s d i r ec t c l a i m, Ap p e lla n t

c o n te n d s in h is se c o n d e n u m e r a tio n o f e rro r th a t his tria l c o u n se l p ro v id e d

2 The jury was not told that Ms. Redmon worked for the Metro Conflict Defender’s Office.

4in e ffe c tiv e a ssista n c e b y fa ilin g to o bje c t to th e tria l ju dg e ’s re m ark s o r to m o v e

fo r th e ju d g e ’s re c u sa l. To p re v a il o n th is c la im

, Ap p e lla n t m u st sh o w bo th th a t

h is c o u n s e l’s p e rfo rm a n c e wa s p ro fe ssio n a lly d e fic ie n t a n d th a t, b ut fo r th e

d e fic ie n c y , th e re is a re a so na ble p ro b a b ility th a t th e o u tc o m e of th e tria l wo u ld

h a v e b e e n m o re fa v o ra

b le to h im

. S e e S tric k la n d v

. Wa sh in g to n , 4 6 6 U. S

. 6 6 8

,

6 8 7

, 69 4 (1 0 4 S Ct 2 0 5 2

, 8 0 L E 2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4 ). “ Th is b u rd e n , a lth o u g h n o t

im p o ssib le to c a rry , is a h e a v y o n e .” Yo u n g v

. S ta te

, 2 92 Ga

. 4 4 3

, 4 4 5 (7 3 8

S E2 d 5 75 ) (2 0 1 3 ). Ap p e lla nt h a s n o t m e t th a t b u rd e n h e re

.

To sta rt w ith

, A p p e lla n t h a s n o t d e m o n stra te d th a t h is tria l c o u n se l’s

p e rfo rm a n c e w a s de fic ie n t. Tria l c o u n se l e x p la in e d a t th e m o tio n fo r n e w tria l

h e a rin g th a t sh e d i d n o t c o n sid e r th e tria l ju d g e ’s re fe re n c e s “ d isre sp e c tfu l o r

d e ro ga to ry ,” a nd th a t “ d ue to h is d e m e a n o r, his n a tu re , [th e ] wa y he tre a te d u s

in th e c o u rtro o m , I d o n ’t th in k a n y o n e e lse wo u l d h av e ta k e n it a s th a t wa y

e ith e r.” “ [C] o u n se l’s d e c isio n n o t t o m a k e a n o b je c tio n m u st b e p a te n tly

u n re a so n a

b le to rise to th e le v e l o f d e fic ie n t pe rfo rm a n c e .” P e o p le s v

. S ta te

, 2 9 5

Ga

. 4 4

, 6 0 (7 5 7 S E2 d 6 4 6 ) (2 0 1 4 ). Giv e n tria l c ou n se l’s first-h a n d p e rc e p tio n

o f th e to ne a n d im

p a c t o f th e ju d g e ’s c o m m e n ts, we c a nn o t sa y th a t sh e h a d n o

re a so na b l e b a s i s f

o r n ot o b je c tin g to th e tria l ju d g e ’s c om m e nts a n d fo r n o t

5m o v in g fo r th e ju d g e ’s re c u sa l.

In a d d itio n , a s e x p la in e d b y t h e su c c e sso r ju d g e in th e o rd e r d e n y in g

Ap p e lla n t’s m o tio n fo r n e w tria l:

th e tria l ju d g e ’s re m a rk s — wh ile fa c ia l l y c o n d e sc e n d in g a n d

se e m in g ly in a

p p ro p ria te wh e n re a d fro m th e dry tra n sc rip t — we re

n o t a c o m m e n t o n th e e v id e n c e an d d id n o t a lte r th e p ro o f a d d u c e d

a t tria l th a t [Ap p e lla n t] sh o t a n d k ille d M a rc u s Ke y d u rin g a n a rm e d

r o b b e r y

. . . . Mo re ov e r, a p p e lla te c ou nse l fo r [Ap p e lla nt] wa s

u n a b le to id e n tify a n y u n fa v o ra b le ru lin g s th a t c o u ld b e tra c e d to

a n y a ttitu d e o f p a rtia lity o r b ia s h e ld b y th e tria l ju d g e

.

Th u s, A p p e lla n t a lso c a n n o t sh o w p r e j u d ic e fro m h is tria l c o u nse l’s a sse rte d

d e fic ie n c y , a s th e re is n o “ re a so n a b le p ro b a b ility th a t, b ut fo r c o u n se l’s

[a lle ge d ly ] u n p ro fe ssio n a l e rro rs, th e re su lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g wo u ld h a v e b e e n

d iffe re n t.” S tric k la n d , 4 6 6 U. S . a t 6 9 4

.

4

. W e d o n o t c o n d o n e t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s u s e o f f i r s t n a me s a n d

p o te ntia lly b e littlin g m o nik e rs to re fe r to c o un se l, p a rtic ula rly i n th e p re se n c e

o f th e ju ry

. Ju d g e s sh ou ld m a in ta in a su bsta ntia l d e g re e o f fo rm a lity in th e ir

c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s. S e e Ca n o n 3 (B) (3 ) o f t h e G eo rg ia Co d e o f Ju d ic ia l

Co n d u c t (“ Ju d g e s sh a ll re q uire o r d e r a n d de c o ru m in p ro c e e d in g s ov e r wh ic h

th e y p re sid e .” ). We h o ld o n ly th a t Ap p e lla n t h a s n o t e sta b lish e d e rro r re q u irin g

th e re v e rsa l o f h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d a n e w tria l.

6Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d

. All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r, e x c e p t Hu n ste in

, J., wh o

c o n c u rs in ju d g m e n t o n ly a s to Div isio ns 2 a n d 3

.

De c id e d F e b ru a ry 1 6 , 2 0 1 5

.

Mu rd e r. F u lto n S u p e rio r Co u rt. Be fo re Ju d g e Mc Bu rn e y

.

Ba rb a ra M. Co llin s, fo r a p p e lla nt.

P a u l L. Ho wa rd

, Jr., D istric t Atto rn e y , P a ig e R e e s e Wh ita k e r, M a rc A.

Ma llo n , Assista nt D istric t Atto rn e y s, S a m u e l S

. Ole ns, Atto rn e y G e n e ra l,

P a tric ia B. Atta wa y Bu rto n , De p u ty Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l, P a u la K. S m ith

, S e n io r

Assista n t Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l, Ka th e rin e L. Ia n n u z z i, Assista n t Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l,

fo r a p p e lle e

.

7