Opinion ID: 1156094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Instances of Alleged Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Text: The habeas court found that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by stipulating to the admissibility of the portion of the video recording that depicts the murder, Brannan's fleeing, and sounds of Dinkheller's dying breaths. Although the recording is deeply disturbing, it was admissible evidence of Brannan's actions and of the death of the victim. See Cohen v. State, 275 Ga. 528, 530-531(3), 570 S.E.2d 301 (2002) (holding that the gruesome or inflammatory aspect of the pictorial evidence, which included a video recording, stemmed entirely from [the defendant's] own acts and was admissible). We conclude as a matter of law that counsel did not perform deficiently by not raising a meritless objection to the portion of the video recording admitted at trial and that Brannan's defense did not suffer prejudice by their failure to do so. See Hampton v. State, 282 Ga. 490, 492(2)(a), 651 S.E.2d 698 (2007); Fults v. State, 274 Ga. 82, 87(7), 548 S.E.2d 315 (2001). Brannan argues in his cross-appeal that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by successfully moving to suppress a portion of his statement to the GBI that contained statements of remorse. However, our review of the statements reveals that the unsuppressed portion also contained statements of remorse and that the suppressed portion contained statements partially fixing blame on the sheriff's office and the victim for not following better procedures. Under these circumstances, we conclude as a matter of law that trial counsel did not perform deficiently by having a portion of the interview suppressed and that Brannan's defense was not prejudiced by counsel's doing so. Brannan also argues in his cross-appeal that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to obtain testimony, like testimony he presented in the habeas court, showing that the victim fired the first shot and that the victim failed to comply with proper police procedures. Counsel testified in the habeas court, however, that he had believed all along that the victim had fired first but that he saw no need for testimony on that subject because it was clear that the victim, being confronted with an armed and belligerent person who refused to put down his assault rifle, should have fired first. He also testified that, in his judgment, the question of who shot first would not affect Brannan's insanity defense. Dr. Storms, the defendant's most-important expert witness, testified that he believed Brannan had entered into a flashback while he was rummaging in his truck looking for his rifle, long before any shots were fired. Furthermore, testimony from Dr. Carter, the trial court's expert, and questions to Dr. Carter by the prosecutor both seemed to assume that the victim had shot first. Under these circumstances, we conclude as a matter of law that counsel did not perform deficiently and that Brannan's defense was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to seek expert testimony regarding who shot first. Likewise, because the jury very likely would have been offended by an argument that the victim was somehow responsible for his own death because he failed to confront Brannan even more aggressively than he did, we conclude as a matter of law that counsel did not perform deficiently and that Brannan's defense was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to introduce evidence about proper police procedures like the evidence Brannan presented in the habeas court.