SECOND DI VI SI ON

A NDREWS, P. J.

, M C F A D DEN and RA

Y, JJ.

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 /

October 2, 2014



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 4 A1 11 8 . HARRIS v . THE STATE.

R A Y , J u d g e.

Fo l l owi n g a ju ry t ri al

, M i ch ael O rl an do Harri s was co n v ict ed o f ch i ld

m o les t at i o n (OCGA § 1 6 -6 -4 (a)). On ap p eal

, H arri s co n t en ds t h at h is t ri al co u n s el

was i neffect iv e i n fai l i n g t o ren d er i n fo rm ed ad v i ce as t o wh et her h e s h o u l d a c cep t

t h e St at e’ s o ffer of a n eg o t i at ed g u i l t y pl ea. Fo r t h e reas o n s s et fo rt h b el o w

, w e

d i s ag ree an d affi rm

.

Vi ewed i n t h e l i gh t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t

, s e e J a c k s o n v

.

Vi r g i n i a

, 4 4 3 U. S. 3 07 (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ), t h e ev i d en ce s ho ws t h at

i n Ap ri l 2 0 1 1, Harri s l i v ed wi t h h is wi fe, Qu i an n a Harri s, th ei r t wo y o u ng ch i l d ren

,

an d t wel ve-y ear-o l d P. D., Qu ian n a Harri s ’ s d au g ht er fro m a p rev i o us rel at i o n s h i p.

P. D

. t es t i fi ed t h at wh i l e s h e an d Harri s w ere al o n e i n t h e h o u s e, th ey pl ay ed t h e g am eo f “ t ru t h o r dare.” Du ri n g t h e co u rs e o f t he g am e, Harri s d ared P. D. t o t ak e o ff h er

cl o t h es

, wh i ch s he d i d

. A ft er P. D. p u t h er cl o t hes back on

, s h e n ot i ced t hat Harri s

,

wh o was cl o t h ed

, h ad an erect io n

. P. D. fu rt h er t es t i fi ed t h at Q u i an na H arri s b ecam e

an g ry aft er s h e fo u n d o u t wh at P. D. an d Harri s had d o n e, an d t h at s he cam e i n to P.

D.’ s ro o m , s crat ch ed h er, an d p u l l ed h er o u t o f t h e b ed

.

A p o l i ce o ffi cer i n t erv i ewed P. D. at h er s ch o ol

, an d P. D. to l d t h e o ffi cer t h at

Harri s dared h e r t o u n d r e s s an d t hat s h e g o t n ak ed

. W h en th e o ffi cer sp o k e wi th

Qu i an n a Harri s

, s h e i n fo rm ed hi m t hat Harri s t o ld h er t h at h e pl ay ed “ t ru t h o r d are”

wi t h P. D. an d th at h e h ad as k ed P. D. t o g et n u de. Th e o ffi cer al s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t

Harri s t o l d t h e o ffi cer th at h e h ad p l ay ed “ t ru t h or d are” wi t h P. D. an d th at h e h ad

d ared P. D. t o g et n ak ed

.

A g ran d ju ry i s s u ed a b i l l o f i nd i ct m en t accu si n g H arri s o f o n e co u nt o f ch i ld

m o les t at i o n an d o n e co u n t o f en t i ci n g a ch i l d fo r i n d ecen t p u rp o s es

. Befo re t ri al

, t h e

St at e ex t en d ed a p l ea o ffe r t o Harri s co n s i s t i n g o f t en y ears p ro b at io n

, al on g wi th

co n di t i o n s i n cl u d i n g t h at he reg i s t er as a s ex o ffen d er. Harri s reject ed t he o ffer. At

t ri al

, b efo re jo i n in g i ss ue, t he St at e g av e H arri s an o p po rt u ni t y t o reco n s i d er wh et h er

h e wan t ed to p urs u e a n eg o t i at ed p l ea. Aft er co n su l t at i o n with Harri s

, d efen s e co u n s el

i n fo rm ed t h e t ri al co urt th at Harri s h ad ch os en to g o fo rward

. T h e cas e p ro ceed ed to

2t ri al

, an d aft er t h e t ri al co u rt gran t ed Harri s ’ s m ot i o n fo r a d i r e c t e d verd i ct o n t h e

ch arg e o f en t ici n g a ch i l d fo r i n d ecen t p u rp o s es

, t h e ju ry fo un d Harri s g u il t y o f ch i ld

m o les t at i o n

. Th e t ri al co urt t h en s en t en ced Harri s t o 1 2 y ears

, wi t h t h e fi rs t fi v e y ears

t o b e s erv ed i n co n fi n em en t an d t h e rem ai nd er to b e s erv ed o n p ro b at i o n. Fo l l o wi n g

a h eari n g , t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed Harri s ’ s m ot i o n fo r n ew t ri al . Harri s ap p eal s

.

Harri s co nt en d s t h at hi s co nv i ct i o n s h o u l d be rev ers ed b ecau s e h e d i d n ot

recei v e i n fo rm ed ad v i ce du ri n g p re-t ri al d i s cu s s i o n s wi t h h i s t ri al co u n s el an d t h at

,

b u t fo r t ri al co u ns el ’ s d efi ci en ci es

, t h ere i s a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at h e wo u ld

h av e accep t ed t h e St at e’ s p lea o ffer. W e d i s ag ree.

To s h o w in effect i ve as s is t an ce o f t ri al co un s el

, Harri s i s req u i red t o es t ab l i s h

t h at h i s “ at t o rn ey ’ s p erfo rm an ce w a s d e f i ci en t, an d t h at t h e d efi ci en cy cau s ed s u ch

p reju d i ce t ha t t here i s a reas o n ab l e l i k el i h o o d t hat

, b u t fo r t h e at t o rn ey ’ s erro r, t h e

o u t co m e at t ri al wo u l d h av e b een d i fferen t .” Du l ci o v. S t at e

, 2 9 2 G a. 6 4 5

, 6 5 0 (3 )

(7 4 0 SE2 d 57 4 ) (2 0 1 3 ). He m u s t al s o “ o v erco m e t h e s t ro n g p res u m p t i o n t h at

co u ns el ’ s co n d u ct fel l wi t h i n t h e ran g e of reas o n ab l e pro fes s i o nal co nd u ct

, wh i ch i s

b ro ad .” Id

. In o ur ap pel l at e rev i ew, we d efer “ t o t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fact u al fi n d i n g s

,

wh i ch are t o b e u p h el d u n l es s cl earl y erro n eo u s

, an d ex am in e[] th e l o wer co urt ’ s l eg al

co n cl u s i o n s d e n o v o.” Id

.

3In t h e co n tex t o f p l ea n eg o ti at i o n s

, t he d eci s i o n w h et h er t o accep t a p ro p o s ed

p l ea ag reem en t m

us t b e m ad e b y t h e accu s ed

, wh o “ s h o u l d h av e th e fu l l an d carefu l

ad v ice o f co u n s el .” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i tt ed .) Ca mmer v. W a lker

, 2 9 0 Ga.

2 5 1 , 2 5 5 (2 ) (7 1 9 SE2 d 4 37 ) (2 0 1 1 ).

[P] ri o r t o t ri al an accu sed i s en t i t l ed t o rel y up o n hi s co u n s el t o m ak e an

inde pe nd en t ex am i n at i o n o f t h e fact s

, ci rcu m s t an ces

, p l ead i ngs a n d la w s

i n v o l v ed an d th en t o o ffer h is i n fo rm ed o p i n i o n as t o w hat p l ea s h o u l d

b e en t ered

. An at t o rn ey o rd i n ari l y m ay sat i s f y t h e du t y t o p ro v id e

i n fo rm ed l eg al ad v i ce reg ard i ng a p l e a o ffer b y d i s cu s s i n g w i t h th e

accu s ed t h e ri s ks o f g o i n g t o t ri al

, t h e ev i d en ce ag ai n s t h i m o r h er, an d

d i fferen ces i n p os s i b l e s en t en ces t h at wo u l d b e i m po s e d f o l l o wi ng a

g u i l ty p l ea an d fo l l o wi n g a co n v i ct io n at t ri al

.

(Ci t at i o n s an d p un ct u at i on o m i t t ed .) Id .; s ee Ll o yd v. S t a t e

, 2 5 8 Ga. 6 45

, 64 8 (2 ) (a)

(3 7 3 SE2 d 1 ) (1 98 8 ) (d efen d an t “ i s en ti t l ed t o b e t o l d t h at an o ffer t o p l ead g u i l t y h as

b een m ad e an d t o b e ad v i s ed o f t h e co n s eq u en ces o f t h e ch o i ces co n fro n t i n g h i m ”).

H a r r i s ’ s tri al co u ns el t es t i fi ed at t h e h eari ng o n m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al t h a t h e

i n fo rm ed Harri s t h at t h e St at e h ad ex t en d ed a p l ea o ffer o f ten y ears p ro b at i o n

p u rs u an t t o wh i ch Harri s wo u l d h av e t o reg i s t er as a s ex o ffen d er. Co u n sel to l d Harri s

t h at i f h e wen t t o t ri al an d l o s t

, h e co u l d b e s en ten ced t o u p t o 2 0 y ears i n p ri s o n.

H a r r i s

, a cco rd i n g to t ri al co u n s el

, d id no t w an t t o reg i s t er as a s ex o ffen d er, b ut

4co u ns el t o l d Harri s t h at i f h e wa s c o n v i c t e d he wo u l d al m o s t cert ai nl y g o t o p ri so n

an d t h at h e w o u l d s t i l l h av e t o reg i s t er as a s ex o ffen d er. Co u n s el al s o i n fo rm ed

Harri s t h at t h e s t at em en t o f a ch i l d i s en ou g h t o co n v i ct fo r ch i l d m o l es t at i o n

, an d h e

t o l d h i m t h at “ i f t h e j u r y b e l i e v e s [P. D .]

, h e’ s g o in g t o p ri s o n. If t h e ju ry d o es n ’ t

b el i ev e th e ch il d

, h e’ s n o t

. An d h e h as t h e o p t io n t o wal k b ack o u t t h e d oo r wi t h a

p ro b at ed s en t en c e

. ” C o u n s e l m ai n t ai n ed t h at h e m ad e a co p y o f t h e d i s co v ery h e

recei v ed fro m t h e St at e an d s h ared i t w it h Harri s

. He co u ld no t recal l if h e al s o m ad e

co p ies fo r H arri s of t h e reco rd ed s t at em en t s o f th e wi tn es s es

, bu t co un s el l i s t en ed to

t h e reco rd i n g s an d i n fo rm ed Harri s o f t h e co nt en t s o f t h e s t at em en t s

. In v i ew o f t h e

fo reg o i n g

, t h e ev i d en ce is s u ffi ci en t t o es t ab l i s h t h at Harri s ’ s t ri al co u ns el i n fo rm ed

h i m of t he St at e’ s p l ea o ffer, an d th at t h ey d i s cu s s ed th e ri s k s o f g oi ng to t ri al

, t h e

ev i d en ce ag ai n s t H arri s

, an d t h e d i fferen ces i n p o s s ib le s en t en ces fo l l owi n g a g ui l t y

p l ea an d fo ll o wi n g a co n v ict i o n at t ri al

, wh ich “ o rd i n ari l y m ay s at i s fy t h e [at to rn ey ’ s ]

d u t y t o p ro v i d e i n fo rm ed l eg al ad v ice reg ard i n g a p l ea o ffer[.] ” Ca mmer

, s u pra at 2 5 5

(2 ).

5Harri s arg u es t h at h i s co u n s el n ev ert h el es s fai l ed t o perfo rm ad eq u at e l eg al

res earch

, 1 an d di d n o t p ro p erl y ad v i s e Harri s o f t h e ap p l i cab l e l aw– i n p art i cu l ar t h at

t o u ch i n g a ch i ld i s n ot req u ired t o s h ow ch i l d m o les t at io n a n d t h a t t h e act req u i red

b y t he cri m i n al s t at ut e m ay b e v erb al

. See, e.g

., Hi cks v. S t a t e

, 2 5 4 Ga. Ap p

. 8 1 4

, 8 1 6

(2 ) (5 6 3 SE2 d 8 9 7 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (v erb al a c t o f a s k i ng t h e v i ct i m t o s p read h er l eg s was

s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt co n v i ct i o n fo r ch i l d m o les t at io n ); Th o m p s o n v. S t a t e

, 1 8 7 Ga

.

Ap p

. 5 6 3, 5 6 3-5 6 4 (2 ) (3 7 0 SE2 d 8 1 9 ) (1 9 8 8 ) (al th o u g h d efen dan t d id n o t t o u ch t h e

ch i l d

, ev id en ce t h at h e req u i red t h e ch il d t o d an ce n ak ed i n fro n t o f h i m w as su ffi ci en t

t o co n s t i tu t e ch i l d m ol es t at i o n ). Harri s p o i n t s o u t th at d u ri n g t h e heari ng o n m o t i o n

1 Harri s al so as s ert s i n h i s cl ai m o f erro r t h at tri al co u n s el “ fai l ed t o in t erv i ew

wi t n es s es or rev i ew d is co v ery ad eq u at el y w i t h a p p el l an t ,” b u t h e fai l s t o s u p p o rt

t h es e cl ai m s wi t h ci t at i on o f au t h o ri t y o r arg u m en t

. See Co urt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 2 5 (c)

(an en u m erat i o n o f erro r wh i ch i s n o t s u p p o rt ed i n t he b ri ef b y ci t at i o n o f au t h o ri t y

o r arg u m en t m ay b e d eem ed ab an d on ed ). Ho wev er, as we m en t i o n ed su p ra, co u n s el

t es t i fi ed t h at h e m ad e co p i es of t h e St at e’ s d i s co v ery fo r Harri s an d in fo rm ed h i m o f

t h e co n t en ts of t h e wi t n es s es ’ reco rd ed s t at em en t s

. To th e ex t e n t i t can b e i n ferred

t h at Harri s cl ai m s t h at h i s co u n s el was defi ci en t i n fai l i ng t o i nt erv i ew P. D., t r i al

co u ns el t es t i fi ed th at h e ch o se n o t t o as k t h e ch i ld ab o u t t h e ca s e o r her reco rd ed

s t at em en t b ecau s e h e d i d n o t “ wan t t o sh o w o ur h an d.” G i v e n t h at t ri al co u n s el

rev i ewed P. D.’ s s t at em en t s t o po l i ce an d m ad e a co n s id ered

, tact i cal d eci s i o n n o t to

at t em p t t o i n t e r v i e w t h e ch i l d

, we can n o t s ay th at co u n sel ’ s act i o ns fel l o u t s i d e t h e

b ro ad ran g e o f reas o n ab le p ro fes s i o n al co n d uct

, n o r t hat co un s el ’ s d eci s i o n

p reju d i ced Harri s

. See g en eral l y Ro b b i n s v. S t a t e

, 2 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 3 23

, 3 3 2 (4 ) (e) (6 5 9

SE2 d 6 2 8) (2 00 8 ) (ap p el l an t fai l ed t o s h o w t h at h e was p reju d i ced b y co u n sel ’ s

fai l u re t o i nt erv iew t h e ch i l d v i ct i m ).

6fo r n ew t ri al

, h i s t ri al co u n s el m ai n t ai n ed th at th e cas e ag ai n s t Harri s d i d n o t “ fi t [] t h e

p aram et ers o f ch i l d m o les tat i o n [.] ” Harri s al s o t es ti fi ed t h at h i s t ri al co u ns el t o l d h i m

t h at t h ere was n o ch i l d m ol es t at i o n b ecau s e h e d i d n o t t o u ch P. D.

No t wi t h s t an d i n g Harri s ’ s arg u m en t s

, t ri al co un s el t es t i fi ed t h at he co n d u ct ed

l eg al res earch an d t h at h e was fam i l i ar wi t h Hi cks , s u p ra.

Co u n s el al s o m ai n t ai n ed th at h e i n fo rm ed Harri s t h at h e co u l d b e co n v i ct ed o f ch i ld

m o les t at i o n i f t h e ju ry co n cl u ded t h at an y t h in g Harri s d i d w a s an i m m o ral act to

s o m eo n e u n d er t h e ag e of 1 6

. See OCGA § 1 6 -6 -4 (a) (1 ) (“ A pers o n c o m m i t s t h e

o ffen s e of ch i l d m o l es t at io n wh en s u ch p ers o n

. . . [d ] o es an y i m m o ral o r in d ecen t act

t o o r i n t h e p res en ce o f o r wi th an y ch i l d u n d er t he ag e o f 16 y ears wi t h th e i n t en t to

aro u s e o r s at i s fy t h e s ex u al d es i res o f ei th er t h e ch i ld o r t h e pe rs o n .”); Th o mp s o n

,

s u p ra at 5 6 3 (2 ) (“ [w] h et h er d efen d an t co m m i t t ed an i n d ecen t o r i m

m o ral act i n t h e

p res en ce o f t h e v i ct i m

. . . w i t h t h e i n t en t t o aro u s e t he s ex ual d es i res o f ei t h er t h e

v i ct i m o r h i m sel f

. . . i s a j ury q u e s t i o n

, a n d wh at t h e ju ry d et erm i nes fro m a

co n si d erat io n an d ev al u at i o n o f t h e wh ol e o u gh t t o be accep t ed ”). Aft er h eari n g t h e

wi t n es s es ’ t es t i m o n y

, t he t ri al co urt

, act i ng as t h e fi n d er o f fact

, co n cl u d ed t h at

Harri s ’ s t ri al co u n s el d i d i n fo rm Harri s t h at h e co u l d b e co nv i ct e d o f ch i ld

m o les t at i o n an d t h at m

u ch o f Harri s ’ s t es t i m o n y was “ n o t

. . . at al l cred i b le.” See, e.

7g

., R o b i n s o n v. St at e

, 2 7 7 Ga. 7 5

, 7 6 (5 8 6 SE2 d 3 1 3 ) (2 00 3 ) (t h e ap p el l at e co u rt wi l l

accep t t h e t ri al co urt ’ s fact u al fi n d in g s an d cred i b i l i t y d et erm i n at i o ns u n l es s cl earl y

erro neo u s ); In t h e In ter es t o f K. F. , 3 1 6 Ga. Ap p . 4 3 7 , 4 3 7 -4 3 8 (1 ) (7 2 9 SE2 d 5 7 5 )

(2 0 1 2) (n o t wi t hs t an d i n g t h e accu s ed ’ s t es t i m o n y t h at his c o unse l h ad v i si t ed h i m o n l y

t wi ce an d d i d n o t co m

m u n i cat e an y i n fo rm at i on as t o t h e e v i d e n ce t h at wo u l d b e

p res en t ed at t ri al

, o r t h at th e St at e h a d p res en t ed an y p lea o ffers

, t ri al co u rt was

au t h o ri zed t o bel i ev e t ri al co u ns el ’ s t es t im o n y ev en t h ou g h i t co nfl i ct ed wi t h t h at o f

t h e accu s ed ). In v i ew o f th e fo reg o in g

, t h e ev i d en ce au t h o ri zed t h e t ri al co urt t o fi n d

t h at Harri s ’ s t ri al co u n s el fu l fi l l ed h i s d u t y o f p ro v id i n g Harri s wi t h i n fo rm ed l eg al

ad v ice reg ard i ng t h e p l ea o ffer, an d t h at co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce was n ot d efi ci en t

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . An d

r ews , P. J., a n d

McFa d d en , J., co ncu r

.

8