In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: April 18, 2023

S23A0340. MARTIN v. THE STATE.

 BOGGS, Chief Justice.

Appellant Anthony Jerry Martin challenges his 2015 

convictions for felony murder and a firearm offense in connection 

with the shooting death of Marlon Underwood. Appellant’s sole 

enumeration of error is that the evidence presented at trial was 

legally insufficient to support his convictions as a matter of 

constitutional due process and Georgia statutory law. However, as 

explained below, when properly viewed in the light most favorable 

to the jury’s verdicts, the evidence was sufficient to support 

Appellant’s convictions. Accordingly, we affirm.1

 1 Underwood was killed on October 4, 2015. On July 5, 2017, a Chatham

County grand jury indicted Appellant and a co-defendant, Mylek Anthony 

Bigham, for malice murder, three counts of felony murder, aggravated assault 

with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault with intent to rob, possession of a 
2

1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the 

evidence at trial showed the following. On October 3, 2015, at 

around 6:00 p.m., Appellant used his cell phone to take three 

photographs of himself wearing a brightly colored shirt with a 

distinctive pattern. Later that evening, Appellant saved 

Underwood’s cell phone number in his cell phone under the name 

 

firearm by a convicted felon, and three counts of possession of a firearm during 

the commission of a crime. At a trial from March 5 to 9, 2018, the jury acquitted 

Bigham of all charges. The jury also acquitted Appellant of malice murder, 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, felony murder based on the felonin-possession charge, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon but found 

him guilty of the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a 

recidivist under OCGA § 17-10-7 (c) to serve life in prison without the 

possibility of parole for felony murder based on aggravated assault with intent 

to rob and a consecutive term of five years for possession of a firearm during 

the commission of felony murder. The court also erroneously sentenced 

Appellant for felony murder based on aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon, aggravated assault with intent to rob, and the other two counts of 

possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Appellant filed a 

timely motion for new trial, which he amended with new counsel on August 24, 

2022. On September 13, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on the motion. On 

October 3, 2022, the court entered an order resentencing Appellant, this time 

not as a recidivist, to serve life in prison with the possibility of parole for felony 

murder based on aggravated assault with intent to rob and a term of five years 

consecutive for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The 

court vacated the other felony murder count on which the jury found Appellant

guilty, merged the count of aggravated assault with intent to rob and the two 

other counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and 

otherwise denied Appellant’s motion for new trial. Appellant filed a timely 

notice of appeal, and the case was docketed in this Court for the term beginning 

in December 2022 and submitted for decision on the briefs.
3

“Lick,” a slang term for the target of a robbery. The next day, 

between 5:11 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., Appellant exchanged a series of 

text messages and cell phone calls with Underwood in which he 

arranged to meet Underwood at a gas station and convenience store 

in Savannah, ostensibly to buy marijuana. Underwood said that he 

was driving a “red jeep,” and Appellant said that he was in a black 

Altima.

At 7:12 p.m., Underwood backed his red SUV into a parking 

space near the entrance to the convenience store beside a white 

Honda. Underwood opened the front driver-side door but remained 

in the SUV with the lights on and the engine running. Appellant and 

another man approached, and Underwood produced a digital scale 

and several grapefruit-sized baggies of marijuana. A struggle over 

the marijuana ensued in which two of the baggies fell under the 

white Honda, at least one baggie was torn open and marijuana was

strewn into the parking lot, and Appellant dropped his cell phone. 

Surveillance video from inside and outside the convenience store 

captured part of the struggle as the three men moved from between 
4

the SUV and the white Honda towards the store window and then 

the entrance to the store. In the video, Appellant is wearing the 

same brightly colored shirt with the distinctive pattern that he had 

on when he took the three photographs of himself on his cell phone 

a little more than 24 hours earlier.

At 7:13 p.m., the man with Appellant fired a .22-caliber pistol 

at Underwood, striking him once in the left side of the chest and 

hitting the rear driver-side door of the SUV. Appellant and the man 

with him then fled the scene as Underwood stumbled through the 

parking lot to the door of the convenience store, dropped his cell 

phone, and collapsed. Responding officers arrived within a minute 

or two of the shooting, and Underwood was taken to a nearby 

hospital, where he died from the gunshot wound to his chest. No 

firearms were found at the scene or otherwise.

At trial, Appellant elected not to testify in his own defense and 

called no witnesses. His defense theory was that the police did not 

do a thorough investigation, that the evidence failed to show that he 

was present at the shooting, and that even if the evidence showed 
5

that he was present, it did not show what his role in the incident 

was.

2. Appellant’s sole enumeration of error is that the evidence 

was insufficient to support his convictions as a matter of 

constitutional due process and OCGA § 24-14-6. We disagree.

The proper standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence as 

a matter of constitutional due process is whether any rational trier 

of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable 

doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (99 SCt 2781, 61 

LE2d 560) (1979). This Court views the evidence in the “light most 

favorable to the verdict, with deference to the jury’s assessment of 

the weight and credibility of the evidence.” Hayes v. State, 292 Ga. 

506, 506 (739 SE2d 313) (2013) (citation omitted).

Appellant’s cell phone, which was recovered at the scene of the 

shooting, contained several self-taken photographs, or “selfies,” of 

Appellant wearing a brightly colored shirt with a distinctive pattern 

a little more than 24 hours before the shooting, and the surveillance 

video showed a man wearing the same shirt and another man 
6

struggling with Underwood moments before the shooting, although 

it did not capture the actual shooting. Data from Appellant’s and 

Underwood’s cell phones showed that they were communicating in 

the time leading up to the shooting, including through text messages 

referring to an upcoming meeting. The day before the shooting,

Appellant saved Underwood’s cell phone number in his cell phone 

under the name “Lick,” a term that law enforcement officers testified 

was a slang term for the target of a robbery. And responding officers, 

who arrived within a minute or two of the shooting, found a digital 

scale and a large amount of marijuana at the scene. Viewed in the 

light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, this evidence was 

sufficient as a matter of constitutional due process to authorize a 

rational trier of fact to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable 

doubt as a party to the crimes of felony murder and possession of a 

firearm during the commission of a felony. See Jackson, 433 U.S. at 

319. See also OCGA § 16-2-20 (defining parties to a crime). 

Appellant’s reliance on OCGA § 24-14-6 is unavailing. That 

statute says that “[t]o warrant a conviction on circumstantial 
7

evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent with the 

hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable 

hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.” “The 

reasonableness of an alternative hypothesis raised by a defendant is 

a question principally for the jury.” See Cochran v. State, 305 Ga. 

827, 829 (828 SE2d 338) (2019).

Appellant claims that the evidence against him was wholly 

circumstantial and puts forward the alternative hypothesis that 

Underwood was armed, the aggressor, and the one attempting a 

robbery. But even assuming (without deciding) that the case against 

Appellant was wholly circumstantial, the jury was authorized to 

reject Appellant’s alternative hypothesis as unreasonable based on 

the evidence, which showed that no firearms were found at the 

scene, and that Appellant arranged the meeting and saved 

Underwood’s cell phone number in his cell phone under the name 

“Lick.” Accordingly, Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the 

evidence as a matter of constitutional due process and Georgia 

statutory law fails.
8

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.