Opinion ID: 1245492
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Analysis of Overall Evidence Suppression Claim

Text: Claims not raised on direct appeal are barred by procedural default, and in order to surmount the bar to a defaulted claim, one must meet the cause and prejudice test. See Turpin v. Mobley, 269 Ga. 635(2), 502 S.E.2d 458 (1998); Black v. Hardin, 255 Ga. 239(4), 336 S.E.2d 754 (1985); OCGA § 9-14-48(d). The prejudice sufficient to satisfy the cause and prejudice test is a prejudice of constitutional dimensions. Mobley, supra, 269 Ga. at 637, 502 S.E.2d 458. Waldrip's underlying Brady claim is such a constitutional claim. Thus, Waldrip's underlying Brady claim and the analysis of the prejudice necessary to satisfy the cause and prejudice test are co-extensive. In light of the discussion above regarding the individual items of allegedly suppressed evidence in this case and upon our review of the trial record, we conclude Waldrip has failed to show that the collective effect of any evidence actually suppressed or assumed for purposes of argument to have been suppressed in reasonable probability led to a different outcome in his trial proceedings. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 436(III), 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (noting that any suppressed evidence must be considered collectively, not item by item). Thus, we conclude both that Waldrip's underlying evidence suppression claim lacks merit and that he has failed to overcome the bar to that claim arising out of procedural default.