FOURTH D I VI SI ON BA RNES, P. J. , RA Y and M CM I LLI A N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly re ce iv e d 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 i on to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s
October 20, 2015



# In t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f G e o rg i a

A 15A 0 998. A

N D E R S O N v. T H E S T A T E

.
B ARNES , P r e siding Judge

.
F ollow ing a

jur y tr ia l, L y le V inc e nt A nde r son w a s f ound guilty of

f ir st de gr e e

f or ge r y a nd se n te n c e d to f

ou r years , w ith six m onths to be se r ve d in c onf

ine m e nt.

A ttor ne y A nde r son, r e p r e se nting him se lf , now a ppe a l s f r om the de n ia l of his m otion

f or ne w t r ia l a nd a ppe a r s to c onte nd t

ha t the t r ia l c our t e r r e d in de ny ing his m otion f or

ne w tr ia l be c a

u se tr ia l c ounse l w a s ine f f e c ti v e, an d err e d in de ny ing his m otion to

“ a v oid c osts, f

ine s, e t c .” F ollow ing our

r e vie w , w e a f

f ir m

.

“ O n a ppe a l f r om a c r im ina l c onvic tion, w e vie w the e v ide nc e in t he light m ost

f a vor a ble to the ve r dic t, w ith t h e d ef e nda nt no longe r e njoy ing a pr e s um ption of

innoc e nc e .” R e e

se v

. State , 270 G a

. A

pp. 522, 523 ( 607 S E 2d 1 65) ( 2004)

. W e ne ithe r

w e igh t he e vide nc e nor judge t

he c r e dibility of w itne sse s, but d e te r m ine only w he the r ,

a f te r vie w ing the e vide n c e in the light m o st f av o rab le t o the pr o se c u tion, a “ r a tiona ltr ie r o f f

a c t c ould ha ve f

ound t h e e sse n tia l e le m e nts of the c r im e b e y ond a r e a sona ble

doubt.” ( C ita

tion om itte d .) J

ac k son v

. V irginia , 4 4 3 U

. S

. 307, 319 ( I I I ) ( B ) ( 99 S C
2781, 61 L E 2d 560) ( 1979)

.
T he r e le v a nt f

a c ts a s show

n in the unpublishe d opinion a f f i r m ing a d ir e c te d

ve r d ic t a nd othe r or de r s a ga inst A

nde r son in a

r e la te d c ivil a c tion a

r e a s f ollow s:
[T eresa ] W a t son hir e d A nde r son to r e pr e s e nt he r in a libe l a c t ion. A nde r son pr e pa

r e d a r e ta ine r a gr e e m e nt, but that ag re e m e nt w a s ne ve r signe d. I t w a s dispute d w he the r A nde r son a nd W a tson o r a lly a gr e e d tha t A nde r son w ould be pa id on a n hour ly ba sis o r o n a c ontinge nt f e e ba sis. A nde r son a lle ge d tha t [P a

ul] W a r e or a lly gua

r a nte e d W a t son’ s obliga

tion f or the pa y m e nt of a ttor

ne y f e e s f or his se r vic e s. W h e n A nde r son did n ot

r e c e ive pa

y m e nt f or his le ga l se r

vic e s, h e f

ile d a v e r i f

ie d c om pla int
ag ainst W a r e a nd W a tson. W a r e a nsw e r e d a nd c ounte r c la im e d f o r

a ttor ne y f e e s pur sua

nt to O C G A § 13- 6- 1 1. W a r e the n m ove d f or p a r tia l

sum m a r y judgm e nt on A n de r son’ s gua r a nty c la im w hic h m o tion the tr ia l

c our t gr a nte d o n the gr ound tha t a ny or a l gua r a nty w a s une nf

or c e a ble unde r the sta

tute of f r a uds. F o llow i ng the r

uling on W a r e ’ s m otion f or pa r tia l sum m a r y judgm e nt, the tr ia l c o ur

t e nte r e d a pr e tr ia l or de r s e tting the r e m a ining c la im s f

or jur y tr ia l

. A t tr ia l, f

ollow ing the pr e se nta tion of A nde r son’ s c a s e , the tr ia l c o ur t e nte r e d a dir e c te d ve r d ic t i n f av o r of W a tson a n d W a r e on A nde r son’ s c l a i m f or a ttor n e y f e e s b a se d on

se r vic e s he c l a im e d he pr ovide d to W a tson.

A nde rson v . W

a r e , 313 G a . A

pp. X X I I I ( Ja

nua r y 20, 2012) ( unpublishe d)

.

2A t the c ivil tr ia l, A n de r son ha d intr oduc e d into e vide nc e a busine ss c a r d

c onta ining ha

ndw r itte n la

ngua ge a nd W a r e ’ s signa

tur e tha t A nde r son c la im e d e vinc e d

t h e t erm s of the a g r e e m e nt to p a y le ga l f e e s. W a r e te stif

i e d tha t he did not ha ve an

a gr e e m e nt w ith A nde r son a n d ha d not s i g ned the c a r d, a nd he pr e se n te d e xpe r t

te stim ony tha t the signa

tur e on the c a r d w a s a

f or ge r y

.

S ubse que nt to the disposition of the c ivil c a se , c r im ina l c h a r ge s w e r e br ought

a ga inst A nde r son a

nd he w a s c ha

r ge d w ith tw o c ounts of f

o r ge r y

. A f t e r a jur y tr ia l, a t

w hic h W a r e a nd the e xpe r

t a ga in te stif

ie d tha t t he signa tur e on the c a r d did n ot be long

t o W a r e , A nde r s on w a s f ound guilty of one c ount of f or ge r y in the f ir st d e gr e e a

n d

se nte nc e d to f

o ur y e a r s, w ith six m onths to se r v e

. 1

1. W e f ir st note tha t the S ta te ’ s c onte n tion tha t A nde r son’ s notic e of a ppe a l w a s

untim e l y f

ile d is inc or

r e c t. W hile the n otic e o f a

ppe a l w a s f

ile d 31 da y s a f te r e ntr y of

the la st or de r a

ppe a le d f r om , the 30th da

y f e l l on a S und ay

. T h e f

iling the r e f

or e w a s

tim e ly

. S e e O C G A §§ 1- 4- 1 ( a ) ( 2) ; 1- 3- 1 ( d) ( 3 ) ; I n re E state of D ashe r , 259 G a

. A

pp. 201, 203 ( 576 S E 2d 559) ( 2002)

.

1 O ne of the f or ge r y c ounts w a s nolle pr osse d.

32. W e ne x t note a s a n initia l m a t te r tha t A nde r so n ’s b ri ef doe s n ot c o nf

or m to

the r ule s o f this C our

t. I t is vir tua lly im possible to a s c e r

ta in f r om the f or m a t of his br ie f

e xa c tly w ha t ha

ppe ne d be l ow a nd t

he “ m a te r ia l f

a c ts r e le v a

n t to the a ppe a l” a s dir e c te d
by C our t of A ppe a ls R ule 25 ( a )

. P a r

t O n e of h is bri ef

, w hic h s hould c onta in a

sta te m e nt of t

he pr oc e ed i n g s b elow a n d r e l e va nt m a te r ia l f

a c t s, c onsists of 3 0

inde pe nde nt stat em ents tha t a ppe a r to be a c o m

bina tion of a r gum e nts a nd f

a c ts. I t is

dif f ic ult to gle a n f

r o m the s e sta

te m e nts w ha t oc cu rred be low a nd w h a t is r e le va nt to

A nde r son’ s e num e r a t e d e r r or s. L ike w ise , h e a

ppe a r s to e n u m erat e thr e e e r r or s o n

a ppe a l tha t ha ve little or

nothing to do w ith the 3 7 sta te m e n ts he n ex t o u t l ine s in the

“ A r gum e nts a nd S ta te m e nts o f A uthor itie s” s e c tion of h is br ie f

. S e e Ru le 25 ( c ) ( 1)

.
W hile r e c ogniz ing A nde r son’ s p r o se sta t us, w e a lso note tha t A nde r son i s a n a ttor ne y ,

a nd a s suc h, should be

e spe c ia lly

c ogniz a nt tha

t

the r ule s of this c our

t a r e not inte nde d to pr ovide a n obsta c le f or the

unw a r y or the pr o se a

p pe lla nt. B r ie f s tha t d o not c o nf

o r m to the r u le s

r e ga r ding e num e r a tions o f e r

r or , str uc tur e of br ie f

s , a r g um e nt, or c i ta tion of a uthor itie s, a s [A nde r son’ s] f a ils t o d o , are not m e r e ly a n inc onve nie n c e or gr ounds f or r e f using to c onside r a pa

r ty ’ s c onte n tions. S uc h br ie f

s hinde r this c our

t i n de te r m ining the substa

nc e a nd ba s is of a n

a ppe lla nt’ s c onte ntions both in f

a c t a nd in la

w a nd m a y w e ll p r e

judic e a n

a ppel l ant’ s a

ppe a l r e ga

r dle ss of the a

m ount of le nie nc y show n.

4N e ve r the le ss, w e w ill a ddr e ss [A nde r son’ s] a r gum e nts, insof a r a s w e a r e

a ble to a sc e r

ta i n the m f r om his br ie f

.

Salazar v . State , 256 G a . A p p. 50 ( 567 S E 2d 706) ( 2002)

.
3. I n his f ir st e num e r a t e d e r

r or , A nde r s on c onte nds “ [t] w o e r r or s a r e a lle ge d ( a )

D e nia l of M o tion f

or N e w T r i a l

. . . ( b) D e nia l of M otion to A void C osts, F ine s, e t c .”

T he r e i s no f

ur the r disc ussion in the “ A r g um e nt a nd C itat i o n of A uthor itie s” se c tion

of the br ie f rel a te d to t

h e a l le ge d de nia l of the “ m otion to a void c osts, f ine s, e t c .”

A c c o r dingly , t

his e r r or is de e m e d a

ba ndone d. S e e C our

t of A ppe a ls R ule 2 5 ( c ) ( 2)
( “ A ny e num e r a tion of e r

r or w hic h is not suppor

te d in the br ie f b y c ita

tion of a uthor ity

or a r gum e nt m a y b e de e m e d a ba ndone d.” ) ; Sm ith v

. S

t ate , 2 78 G a

. A

pp. 315, 323 ( 9)
( 6 28 S E 2d 722) ( 2006)

.
I t a ppe a r s tha t pa

r t ( a ) of the f

i r st e num e r a tion, the de nia l of his m otion f or ne w

tr ia l, is r e l a te d to a n ine f

f e c tive ne ss c la im be c a

use A n de r son’ s se c on d e n

u m e r a t e d e r r or

sta te s tha t, “ [p] r e lim ina

r y disc ussion of e r

r or s a bove : give n t

he r ( he a r s a ls [sic ] of [tr ia l

c ounse l’ s] e r

r or s of om ission, P a r

t O ne t h ro u g h ¶ 11, f

ollow e d by h is e r

r or s of

c om m ission a t ¶ 12 thr ough the e nd. . . . it w a s e r r one o us to de ny

the m otion.” 2

2 E num e r a tion 3 doe s not a ppe a r to be a c l a im of e r

r or , but i nste a d a

ppe a r s to
r e la te to the f

ir st e num e r a t e d e r

r or a n d sta t e s a s f ollow s:
5A t the m otion f or ne w tr ia l he a r ing, w hic h w a s he ld ove r a tw o da y pe r iod, tr ia l

c ounse l, w ho ha d ove r 22 y e a r s of e xpe r ie nc e , ha d r e pr e se n te d thousa nds of c r im ina l

de f e nda nts, a nd ha d c onduc te d a t le a st 25 f or g e r y c a se s, te stif

ie d tha t h e w a s r e ta ine d

shor tly be f or e t r ia l. H e f u r the r te stif ie d tha t his tr ia l s tr a te gy w a s t o s how tha t the S ta te

did not e sta

blish tha t A nde r son ha d the r e quisite inte nt t o c om m it a f or g e r y b y m e r e l y

posse s sing the card w ith the suspe c t signa tur e , b ut t ha t his str a te gy ultim a te ly h a d

f a ile d.

I n e va lua ting c la im s of ine f f e c tive a ss i s t an ce of c ounse l, w e a pply the tw opr onge d te st e sta

b lishe d in Stric k

land v

. W ashington, 466 U .S

. 668 ( 104 S C t 2052, 8 0

L E 2d 674) ( 1984)

. U n d e r this te st, the a ppe lla nt f ir st m ust s how tha t c ouns el’ s

pe r f or m a n c e w a s de f

i c ie nt a nd, se c ond, t

ha t he w a s pr e

judic e d b y c ounse l’ s de f

ic ie nt

pe r f or m a n c e

. Stric k

l and , 466 U .S

. a t 687 ( I I I ) ; se e a lso A shm id v

. S tate , 316 G a

. A

pp.

M e thodologic a l f

ootnote s: f

ir st, ( b ) m a y

be c o m e m oot if ( a ) ne w

tr ia l is
gr a nte d, the t

r ia l c our t be ing notic e d tha t w a ive r o f pr o ba tion f ees w a s gr a nte d inde pe nde nt of its r ulings: se c ond, suc h issue s a r e pa r t ly

a ddr e sse d in P a

upe r ’ s A f f i da vit, in co r

por a t e d h e r e in by r e f

e r e nc e , to

a void c osts in this C our

t, the unr eas o n ab l e ne ss of tr ia l c our t ’ s r uling ought to a c c our ( sic ) f

o r tha t la te r know le dge of t he f t of a l l A ppe lla nt’ s

m onie s, by

his tr ia l a t tor

ne y a nd f or m e r tr a nsla tor

. 6550, 556 ( 3) ( 730 S E 2d 37) ( 2012)

. M or e ove r , “ t he r e is a str ong pr e s um

ption tha t tr ia l

co u n se l’ s pe r f

or m a nc e f a lls w ithin the w ide r a nge of r e a sona ble pr o f e ss i o n al

a ssista nc e , a nd tha t a

n y c ha lle nge d a c tion by tr ia l c ounse l m ight be c onside r e d sound

tr ia l str a t e gy .” ( P unc tua tion a nd f ootnote om itte d.) A shm i d , 316 G a

. A p p

. a t 556 ( 3)

. I n

a ddr e ssing the se c ond pr ong, w e a sk “ w he the r th ere ex i sts a r e a s ona ble pr oba bility

tha t , b ut f or his c ounse l’ s e r

r or s, the j ur

y w ould ha ve h a d r e a sona ble doubt r e ga

r ding

a ppe lla nt’ s guilt, tha t is, but f

or c ounse l’ s unpr of

e s sio n al error s, the r e sult of the

pr oc e e ding w ould ha ve be e n dif f e r e nt.” ( P unc tuat i o n a nd f ootnote om itte d.) I d. W e

ne e d not a ddr e ss both pr ongs of the te st if A nde r son ha s m a de a n insuf f ic ie nt show ing

on e ithe r one

. S e e B urge r v

. State , 323 G a

. A pp. 787, 788 ( 748 S E 2d 462) ( 2013)

.
F ur the r , “ [t] r ia l ta c tic s a

nd str a te gy , no m a tte r h ow m ista ke n in hindsight, a

r e a lm ost

ne ve r a de qua te gr ounds f

or f inding tr ia l c ounse l ine f

f e c tive unle ss the y a r e s o pa te ntly

unr e a sona

ble t ha t no c om

pe t e nt a ttor

ne y w ould ha ve c hose n t he m .” ( C ita

tion a n d

punc tua t ion om itte d.) C

rum ity v

. State , 321 G a

. Ap p

. 7 6 8 , 771 ( 2) ( 743 S E 2d 455)
( 2 013)

.
T he 37 sta

te m e nts in the a r gum e nt a nd c ita tions di v i sion of A nde r son’ s br ie f

inc l ude points of l a w , f

a c tua l a sse r

tions, a n d a lle g e d e r

r or s a n d do not a t a ll c or

r e la te

7to t

he t hr e e e n um e r a te d e r

r o r s he r a i se d, a

n d w e a r e the r e f

or e ha ndicap p ed i n

de te r m ining w ha t A nde r son c l a im s a r e insta n c e s in w hic h h is t

r ia l c ounse l w a s

ine f f ect i v e.

. “ A s w e ha v e r e ite r a te d tim e a nd tim e a ga in, this C our t w ill not c ull the

r e c or d, [or br ie f

] in se a r c h of erro r on be ha lf of a pa r t y .” ( C ita tion, punc tua tion a

n d

f ootnote om itte d.) A rnold v

. S t ate , 262 G a

. A

pp

. 6 1 (1 ) (5 84 S E 2d 662) ( 2003) ; se e

a lso C our t of A ppe a ls R ule 25 ( c ) ( 1) ( “ T he se que nc e of a r gum e nts i n t he br ie f s sha l l

f ollo w t h e o rd er of the e num e r a tion of e r r or s, a nd s ha ll be num

be r e d a c c o r dingly .” )

A nde r son f

u r the r s ta te s tha t his c onte ntions inc l ude “ va r ious m a tte r s t

ha t w e r e not put

into the r e c or d due to e thic a l la pse s a nd/or

inc om pe te nc e of f

o r m e r c oun s el .” I n tha t

r e ga r d, e ve n if w e c ould distinguish the e r r or s tha t w e r e not put into the r e c or d, “ [e ] r r or

m ust a ppe a r f r om the r e c or d se nt to this c our t by the c l e r

k of the tr ia l c our

t. T he bur d e n

is on the pa

r ty a lle ging e r

r o r to show it a f

f ir m a tive ly by the r e c or d .” ( P unc tua tion a n d

f ootnote o m itte d.) Ste e le v

. A tlanta M ate rnal- F e tal M e dic ine , 2 83 G a

. A

pp. 274, 277-

278 ( 3) ( 641 S E 2d 257) ( 2007)

. S e e H utto v

. State , 320 G a

. A

pp. 235, 240- 241 ( 3) ( 739

S E 2d 7 2 2 ) ( 2013) ( “ [T ] his C our t m a y not a ddr e ss issue s on a ppe a l w hic h w e r e not

a dd res s ed b y the tr ia l c our t, be c a use this C our

t i s a c our t f or the c or r e c tion of e r

r or s

a nd it doe s not c onside r m a t te r s w hic h w e r e n ot r a ise d a nd r ule d on b y t

he tr ia l c o ur

t.

8W ithout a r

uling b y the tr ia l c our

t on this pa

r tic ula r issue , the r e is nothing f or t his

C our t to r e vie w

on a ppe a l.” ) ( punc tua tion a

nd f ootnote om itte d)

. Rega r d ing a ll of the r e m a ining c la i m s o f ine f f e c tive ne ss, a s note d e a r lie r , we

ne e d not a ddr e ss both pr ongs of the Stric k lan d ine f f e c tive nes s te s t i f A nde r son ha s

m a de a n insuf

f ic i e nt show ing on e ithe r one

. S e e B urge r v

. State , 323 G a

. A pp. a t 788.

D e spite his c la i m s of c ounse l ’ s e r r or , g ive n the ove r

w h e l m ing e v ide nc e in this c a se ,
A nde r son h a s not show

n tha t the r e “ e xists a r e a so n ab le p r oba bility tha t, b ut f

or his

c ounse l’ s e r

r or s, the jur

y w ould ha ve ha d r e a sona

ble doubt r e ga

r ding a ppe lla n t’ s guilt,

tha t is, but f

or c ounse l’ s unpr of

e ssiona l e r

r o r s, the r e sult of the p r oc e e ding w o uld ha ve

be e n d if f e r e nt.” ( P u nc tua tion a nd f

ootnote om itte d.) A shm id , 316 G a

. A pp. a t 556 ( 3)

.
A c c or dingly , w e a f

f ir m the tr ia l c our

t’ s d e nia l of A nde r son’ s m o t i o n f or ne w

tr ia l.

J udgm e n t affirm e d. R ay

and M c M i llian, J J ., c onc ur

.

9