2 9 6 Ga . 6 63

F INAL COP Y

S 1 4 A1 7 0 2 . JONES v . THE S T ATE.

N AHMI AS , Ju stic e

.

Ap p e lla n t Ja rq u e z Jo n e s wa s c o n v ic te d o f two c o u n ts o f m a lic e m u rd e r fo r

th e sh o o tin g d e a t h s o f T h a d d e u s Ne lso n a n d R a n d y Wild e r; fo u r c o u n ts o f

a g g ra v a te d a ssa u l t f

o r sh o o tin g to wa rd Am a n d a Hill, Ale x is Je nk in s, Au d ra

Mc Clu ste r, a n d S h a me t i a Mc Clu sk e y ; a nd p o sse ssio n o f a fire arm d u rin g th e

c o m m i s s i o n o f a fe lo ny

. Ap p e lla n t a rg u e s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in n o t

c h arg in g th e ju ry o n v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r a n d th a t h is se n te n c e o f two

c o n se c u tiv e te rm s o f life im p riso n m e n t p l u s 8 5 y e a rs c on stitu te s c ru e l a n d

u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t. We a ffirm

. 1

1 The crimes occur

r e d o n September 1 4, 2010. On December 17, 2010, a F ulton County

g rand jury indicted Appellant, L adarrius J ones, and Samuel J o nes for two counts of malice murder,

two c ounts of felony murder, six counts of ag g ravated a ssault, 11 counts of participation in criminal

street g ang activity

, a n d o n e count o f possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony

. Appellant a

nd his co-indictees were tried from September 7 to September 23, 2011. T h e jury found

Samuel J ones not g u ilty of all c harg es and Appellant and L adarrius J o n es g uilty of all charg es ex cept
the 1 1 ga n g a c tivity counts. The felony murder counts were vacated as a matter o f law, and the charg es for ag g ravated assault of Nelson and W ilder merg ed into the two malice murder counts. The

trial court sentenced Appellant a nd L a darrius J o nes to serve two c onsecutive term s of life imprisonment for the malice murder convictions, 20 c onsecutive y ears for e ach o f the four remaining

ag g r avated assault convictions, and five consecutive y ears for the firearm o f

fense. On September 30, 2011, Appellant filed a motion for new trial, w hich he amended with new counsel on December

2 0

, 2012. After a hearing

, the trial court denied the motion on A pril 2 8, 2014. App e l l a n t f i l e d a timely notice of appeal, a nd the case was docketed to this Court f o r the September 2014 term and

s u b m i t t e d for decision on the briefs. The record does n ot indicate whether L adarrius J ones ha s appealed.1

. Vie we d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ic ts, th e e v id e n c e a t

tria l sh o we d th e fo llo win g

. Ap p e lla n t, his b ro th e r S a m u e l Jo n e s, a nd h is c o u sin

La d a rriu s Jo n e s we re p a rt o f th e “ Blu ff Ga ng , ” a ra p g ro u p in th e Atla n ta

n e ig hb o rh o o d kn o wn a s th e Blu f f

. O n S e p te m

b e r 1 3

, 20 10

, A p p e lla n t a n d

S a m u e l’s m o th e r p o ste d in su ltin g re m a rk s o n S a m u e l’s girlfrie n d ’s F a c e b o o k

p a g e

. S a m

u e l’s g irlfri e n d a

n d th e fo u r a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt v ic tim s we re m e m b e rs

o f th e “ Yo u n g Cre w,” o r “ YC,” a n o th e r ra p g r o u p i n t h e Blu ff. Afte r se v e ra l

m o re in su lts we re e x c h a ng e d v ia F a c e b o o k

, m e m b e rs o f th e Blu ff G a n g a n d YC

to o k th e o n lin e d isp u te to th e stre e ts. Th a t n ig h t, Ap p e lla n t an d so m e YC

m e m b e rs in c lu din g Ale xis Je n k in s h a d a c o n f r o n t a tio n , d u rin g wh ic h in su lts

we re e x c h a n g e d a n d YC m e m b e rs m ay h a v e th re a te n e d Ap p e lla n t w i t h a g u n

a n d a ta se r. In re sp o n se , Ap pe lla n t d re w a gu n an d th e n sh ot a t th e YC m e m b e rs

a s th e y ra n a wa y

.

Aro u n d 3 :0 0 p .m

. th e n e x t d a y , S e p t e m b e r 1 4, A p p e lla n t a n d YC m e m b e rs

h a d a no th e r c o n fro n ta tio n , du rin g wh ic h Ap p e lla n t pu t a g un to Je n k in s’s h e a d

a n d th e n fire d a sh o t in to th e a ir. Je n kin s th re a te n e d to g e t h e r c o u sin s to fig h t

Ap p e lla n t, b u t sh e d id n ot d isp la y a we a p o n

.

Aro u n d 1 0 :0 0 p .m

. t h a t n ig h t, Ap p e lla n t a g a in c o nfro n te d YC m e m b e rs

2o n th e stre e t. A witn e ss wh o sa w th e e n c o un te r te stifie d th a t Ap pe lla n t lo o k e d

lik e h e wa s g o in g to fig h t t h e YC m e m b e rs, a n d th e y a

p pe a re d to e x c h a n g e

a n g ry wo rd s. As th e witn e ss tu rn e d a w a y , th e Y C m e m be rs r a n p a st h e r, a n d

sh e h e a rd g u n sh o ts. Se ve ra l o th e r witn e sse s, m o st o f w h o m we re Y C m e m b e rs,

te stifie d to se e in g Ap p e lla n t sh o o t a t th e fle e in g g ro u p o f YC m e m b e rs, wh ic h

in c lu de d Je nk in s, Hill, Mc Clu ste r, a n d Mc Clu sk e y

. 2 Th e te stim o ny v a rie d a s to

wh o wa s with Ap pe lla n t (m ost w itn e sse s sa id h e w a s with two o r th re e o th e r

m e n ), wh e th e r his a sso c ia te s h a d g u n s, a nd h o w m a n y sh ots w e re fire d

. Wild e r

a n d Ne lso n, wh o we re no t in v o lv e d in th e disp u te b e twe e n th e Blu ff Ga n g a n d

YC, w e re sta n d in g in th e a re a wh e n th e sh oo tin g b e ga n a n d w e r e th e o n ly

p e o p le h it b y th e g u n fire ; th e y b o th d ie d fro m th e ir g u n sh o t wo u n ds. Wh e n th e

first p o lic e o ffic e r a rriv e d o n th e sc e ne , Je n k in s, wh o a lso te stifie d a t tria l, to ld

h im th a t Ap p e lla n t a n d o th e rs h a d b e e n sh o o tin g a t th e m

. Ap p e lla n t a n d h is c o

in d ic te e s we re n o t lo c a te d th a t n ig h t, b u t th e y we re a rre ste d six d a y s la te r a fte r

2 A lthoug h the indictment lists the name of o n e o f the a g g ravated assault victims as Shametia McCluster, at trial she was identified without dispute as Shametia McCluskey

. Appellant

does not arg ue that this variance undermines his conviction for that count of ag g r avated assault, and

this Court h as held that a challeng e to the sufficiency of the evidence b ased on an incorrectly named

victim will fail w hen “it is clear that the two names referred to the same individual,” B ostic v. State, 294 Ga. 845, 847 (757 SE2d 59) (2014), as is the case here.

3b e in g p u lle d o v e r fo r sp e e d in g

. No witn e sse s sa w an y YC m e m b e rs with g u n s

o n S e p te m

b e r 1 4

, a n d sh e ll c a sin gs we re re c o v e re d o n ly fro m t h e a r e a wh e re

Ap p e lla n t h a d b e e n se e n

.

At tria l, Ap p e lla nt’s d e fe n se th e o ry wa s th a t h e d id n o t p a rtic ip a te in th e

sh o o tin g s. Ap p e lla n t d id n o t t e s t i f y , bu t h e o ffe re d two a lib i witn e sse s wh o

c la im e d th a t h e wa s in a d iffe re n t a re a of th e Blu ff a n d t o o k c o v e r in sid e a

b u ild in g with th e m

wh e n th e sh o o tin g b e ga n

.

A p p e l l a n t d o e s n o t d i s p u te th e le g a l su ffic ie n c y o f th e e vid 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, a s i s t h i s C o u rt’s pra c tic e in m u rd e r c a se s, we

h a v e re v ie we d th e re c o r d a n d c o n c lu de th a t, wh e n v ie we d in th e lig h t m o st

fa v o ra ble to th e ve rd ic ts, th e e v id e n c e pre se n te d a t tria l a n d su m m a riz e d a b o v e

wa s su ffic ie n t to a

u th o riz e a ra tio n a l ju ry to fin d Ap p e lla n t g u ilty b e y o n d a

re a so na b le d o u bt o f th e c rim e s fo r wh ic h he wa s c o n v ic te d

. S e e Ja c k so n v

.

Virg in ia

, 4 4 3 U. S

. 3 0 7

, 3 1 9 (9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 79 ). S e e a lso Ve g a

v

. Sta te

, 2 8 5 Ga

. 32

, 3 3 (6 7 3 S E2 d 2 2 3 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (“ ‘It wa s fo r th e ju ry to

d e te rm in e th e c re d ib ility o f t h e w i t n e s se s a n d to re so lv e a n y c o n flic ts o r

in c o nsiste nc ie s in th e e v id e n c e .’” (c ita tio n o m itte d )).

2

. Ap pe lla n t a rg ue s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is re q u e st fo r

4a n in stru c tio n o n v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r a s a le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f m u rd e r.

In fa c t, th a t in stru c tio n wa s re q u e ste d o n ly b y o n e o f Ap p e lla n t’s c o -d e fe n d a n ts,

a n d wh e n th e c ou rt d e nie d it, A p p e lla n t d id n o t ob je c t, lik e ly b e c a

u se a n y

c o n te n tio n th a t h e c o m m itte d v o lu n ta ry m a n slau g h te r wo u ld h a ve b e e n e n tire ly

in c o nsiste nt with h is a lib i d e fe n se

. Ac c o rd in g ly

, th e tria l c ou rt’s fa ilu re to g iv e

a v o lu n ta ry ma n s l a u g h te r in stru c tio n is re v ie wa b le o n a p p e a l o nly fo r p la in

e rro r. S e e OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 8 (b ) (p ro vid in g th a t th e fa ilu re to o b je c t re g a rd in g

a ju ry in stru c tio n a t tria l p re c lu d e s a p p e lla te re v ie w u n le ss “ th e ju ry c h arg e

c o n stitu te s p la in e rro r wh ic h a ffe c ts su bsta n tia l rig h ts o f th e pa rtie s” ); S ta te v

.

Ke lly

, 2 9 0 Ga

. 29

, 3 2 (7 1 8 SE2 d 2 3 2 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (“ [A] p p e lla te re v ie w fo r p la in

e rro r is re q u ire d wh e n e v e r a n a p p e a lin g p arty p ro p e rly a sse rts a n e rro r in ju ry

in stru c tio n s.” ).

Th e “ p la in e rro r” te st a d o p te d by th is Co u rt in S ta te v

. Ke lly

. . . a u th oriz e s re v e rsa l o f a c o n v ic tio n if th e in stru c tio n wa s

e rro ne o us, th e e rro r wa s o b v io u s, th e in stru c tio n lik e ly a ffe c te d th e

o u tc o m e o f th e p ro c e e d in g s, a n d th e e rro r se rio u sly a ffe c te d th e fa irn e ss, in te g rity or p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f ju dic ia l p ro c e e d in g s. S a t i s f y i n g a ll fo u r p ro ng s o f th is sta n d a rd is diffic u lt, a s it sh o u ld

b e

.

La k e v

. S ta te

, 2 9 3 Ga

. 5 6

, 5 9 (7 4 3 S E2 d 41 4 ) (2 0 13 ) (c ita tio ns a nd p u n c tu a tio n

o m itte d ). We se e n o p la in e rro r h e re

.

5A v olu n t a r y ma n sla ug h te r c h a rg e is re qu ire d on ly if th e re is “ ‘slig h t

e v id e n c e sh o win g th a t th e v ic tim se rio u sly p ro v o k e d th e d e fe n d a nt, c a u sin g th e

d e fe n d a n t t o k ill th e v ic tim “ so le ly a s th e re su lt o f a su d d e n , vio le n t, a n d

irre sistib le p a ssio n ,” O CGA § 1 6 -5 -2 (a ).’” Me rritt v

. S ta te

, 2 9 2 G a

. 3 2 7

, 3 3 1

(7 3 7 S E2 d 6 7 3 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). Ap p e lla n t a rg u e s th a t e v id e n c e o f

witn e sse s to th e d e a d ly e n c o u n te r h e a rin g n u m e ro u s g u n sh o t s r a ise d th e

p o ssib ility o f m

u tu a l g u n fire

. Bu t th e re wa s n o e v id e n c e th a t th e YC m e m b e rs

h a d g u n s o r sh o t a t Ap p e lla n t, a n d th e o n ly sh e ll c a sin g s a t th e sc e n e we re fo u n d

wh e re Ap p e lla nt wa s se e n firin g h is g un

.

S o me e v id e n c e d id su g g e st th a t YC m e m b e rs m a y h a v e th re a te n e d

Ap p e lla n t with a g u n a n d a ta se r d u rin g th e ir first e n c o u n te r o n th e n ig ht b e fo re

th e killin g s. It wa s no t p la in e rro r, h o we v e r, fo r th e tria l c o u rt to d e te rm in e , a s

a m a tte r o f la w , th a t th e o n e -d a y in te rv a l b e twe e n th a t p o ssib le p ro v o c a tio n a n d

th e killin g s wa s “ su ffic ie n t fo r th e v o ic e o f re a so n a n d h u m a n ity to be h e a rd ” b y

Ap p e lla n t, so th a t “ th e killin g [s] sh a ll b e a ttrib u te d to d e lib e ra te re v e n g e a n d b e

p u n ish e d a s m

u rd e r.” OCGA § 1 6

- 5

- 2 ( a ). S e e , e .g ., Me rritt, 2 92 G a

. a t 3 3 1

(h o ld in g th a t n o v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g hte r in stru c tio n wa s re q uire d wh e re “ a fe w

h o u rs p a sse d b e twe e n th e [ a l l e g e d ly p ro v o k in g ] arg um e n t a n d th e k illin g ” );

6Ho wa rd v

. S ta te

, 2 8 8 Ga

. 7 4 1

, 7 4 6 (7 07 SE2 d 80 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (sa m e , wh e re “ th e

sh o o tin g o c c u rre d th re e to fo u r h o u rs a fte r th e in itia l c o n fro n ta tio n ,” so th a t

“ o b je c tiv e ly

, [Ap p e lla n t’s] re sp on se to th e pro v o k in g in c i d en t wa s

u n re a so n a

b le ” (c ita tio n o m itte d )).

Ap p e lla n t a lso p o in ts to e v id e n c e su g g e stin g th a t h e wa s a rg uin g with th e

YC m e m b e rs imme d i a t e l y be fo re th e sh o o tin gs, b ut th e re is n o e v id e n c e a s to

wh a t wo rd s w e re e x c h a n g e d a n d in a n y e v e n t, “ [a ] s a m a tte r o f l a w , a n gry

sta te m e n ts a lo n e o rd in a rily d o n o t a m o u n t to ‘se rio u s p ro v o c a tio n ’ with in th e

m e a n in g o f O CGA § 1 6 -5 -2 (a ).” Me rritt, 2 9 2 Ga

. a t 3 3 1

. Mo re o v e r, “ [ t ]h i s

Co u rt h a s re p e a te d ly h e ld th a t n e ith e r fe ar th a t so m e o n e is g o in g to p u ll ag u n

n o r fig h tin g p rio r to a h o m ic id e a re ty pe s o f p ro vo c a tio n d e m a n d in g a v o lu n ta ry

m a n sla u g h te r c h a rg e

. ” F u n e s v

. S ta te

, 2 8 9 Ga

. 7 9 3, 7 95 (7 1 6 S E2 d 1 8 3 ) (2 0 1 1 ).

F o r th e se re a so n s, th e tria l c o u rt’s fa ilu re to c h arg e o n vo lu n ta ry m a nsla u g h te r

wa s n o t p la in e rro r. S e e Me rritt, 2 9 2 Ga . a t 3 3 1

.

3

. Ap pe lla n t, wh o w a s 1 7 y e a rs o ld a t th e tim e o f h is c rim e s, a lso

a sse rts th a t h is se n te n c e — two c o n se c u tiv e te rm s of life im p riso n m e nt p lu s 8 5

y e a rs — c o nstitu te s c r ue l a n d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t in vio la tio n o f th e Eig h th

7Am e n dm e n t to th e Un ite d S ta te s Co nstitu tio n

. 3 A p p e lla n t d id n o t ra ise th is

c o n stitu tio n a l c l aim a t o r b e fo re h is se n te n c in g o r in h is m o tio n fo r n e w tria l,

h o we v e r, a nd he th e re fo re h a s wa iv e d a p p e lla te re v ie w of th e issu e

. S e e

Brin kle y v . S ta te , 2 91 Ga

. 1 9 5 , 1 9 6 (7 2 8 S E2 d 5 9 8 ) (2 0 1 2 ).

In a n y e v e n t, Ap p e lla nt’s Eig hth Am e nd m e nt c la im is m e ritle ss. Ge o rg ia

la w p ro v id e s t h a t “ [ a ] p e rso n c o n v ic te d o f th e o ffe n se o f m u rd e r sh a ll b e

p u n ish e d b y d e a th

, b y im

p riso n m e n t fo r life w ith o u t p aro le

, o r b y im p riso n m e n t

fo r life .” OCGA § 1 6 -5 -1 (e ) (1 ). Th e Su p re m e Co urt o f th e Un ite d S ta te s ha s

in re c e n t y e a rs lim ite d th e se n te n c e s th a t m ay b e im po se d o n d e fe n d a n ts wh o

m u rd e r b e fo re th e y tu rn 1 8

, h o ld in g first th a t th e E ig hth Am e n d m e n t fo rb id s

im p o sin g a de a th se n te n c e o n su c h ju v e n ile s, se e Ro p e r v. S im m o n s, 5 4 3 U. S

.

5 5 1 (1 2 5 S Ct 11 8 3

, 1 6 1 LE2 d 1 ) (2 0 0 5 ), a nd th e n th a t th e C o nstitu tio n fo rb id s

im p o sin g e ve n a m a n d a t o r y s e n te n c e o f life with o u t p a ro le

, se e M ille r v

.

Ala b a m a , 5 67 U. S

.

__

_ , 1 32 S C t 2 4 5 5

, 1 8 3 LE2 d 4 0 7 (2 0 1 2 ). S in c e Mille r,

th is Co u rt h a s h e ld th a t se n te n c in g a ju v e n ile to life in p riso n with o u t th e

p o ssib ility o f p a ro le p ursu a n t t o O C G A § 1 6-5 -1 (e ) (1 ) d oe s n o t v io la te th e

3 Appellant raises no distinct claim under the parallel provision of the Georg ia Constitution. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I , Sec. I , Par. XVI I

.

8fe d e ra l o r sta te c o n stitu tio n b e c a u se su c h a se n te nc e is n o t m a n da to ry b u t ra th e r

is im p o se d in th e d isc re tio n o f th e se n te n c in g c o u rt a fte r c o n sid e ra tio n o f a ll th e

c irc u m sta n c e s in th e g iv e n c a se , in c lu d in g th e a g e o f th e o ffe n de r a n d th e

q u a litie s th a t a c c o m

pa n y y o u th

. S e e Bu n v

. S ta te

, 2 9 6 Ga

. 5 4 9 (7 6 9 S E2 d 3 8 1 )

(2 0 1 5 ); F o ste r v . S ta te , 2 9 4 Ga . 3 8 3 , 3 8 7 (7 5 4 S E2 d 3 3 ) (2 0 1 4).

In se n te n c in g Ap p e lla n t, th e tria l c ou rt fo llo we d th e g u id a n c e o ffe re d in

Mille r a n d e xp lic itly c o n sid e re d Ap p e lla n t’s re la tiv e ly y ou ng a g e

. S e e Mille r,

1 3 2 S Ct a t 2 46 9 (re q u irin g c ou rts to “ ta k e in to a c c ou nt h o w c h il d r e n a r e

d i ffe re n t, a n d h o w th o se d iffe re n c e s c o un se l a g a in st irre vo c a b ly se n te n c i n g

th e m to a life tim e in p riso n” ). Th e c o u rt e x p la in e d th a t it ba se d its se n te n c e o n

b a la n c in g Ap p e lla n t ’ s y o u t h a g a i n s t t h e “v ic io u s, m e a n , v io le n t be h a v io r a n d th e

a d u lt c o n d u c t th a t wa s e n g a g e d in ,” wh ic h in c lu d e d th e m urd e r o f n o t o n e b u t

two in n o c e n t b y sta n d e rs. Ap p e lla n t’s se nte n c e wa s c on stitu tio n a l.

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o nc u r.

D e c id e d Ma rc h 2 , 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 S c hwa ll.

C.F

. Bro c k

& Asso c ia te s, Ch a

u n d a Bro c k, fo r a

p p e lla n t.

9P a

u l L

. Ho wa rd

, Jr., Distric t Atto rn e y , P a ig e Re e se Wh ita k er , L e n n y I.

Kric k, Assista n t D istric t Atto rn e y s, S a m u e l S

. O le n s, Atto rn e y Ge ne 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, Ma tth e w B. Cro w d e r, Assista n t Atto rn e y Ge n er a l

, fo r

a p p e lle e

.

1 0