Martin v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Reeves v. State

    329 Ga. App. 470 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    See generally McKibbins v. State, 293 Ga. 843, 849–850(3)(b), 750 S.E.2d 314 (2013) ; Smith v. State, 294 Ga.App. 692, 707–708(10)(i)(i), 670 S.E.2d 191 (2008) ; Johnson v. State, 263 Ga.App. 443, 449 –450(3)(c), 587 S.E.2d 775 (2003).Martin v. State, 294 Ga.App. 117, 122(3), 668 S.E.2d 549 (2008) (citation and punctuation omitted). Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

  2. Lee v. State

    306 Ga. App. 144 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 10 times
    Rejecting argument that juvenile adjudication was inadmissible because defendant was not capable of forming criminal intent

    As such, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of the prior offense. Condra, supra, 238 Ga. App. at 175 (2); see also Martin v. State, 294 Ga. App. 117, 119 (2) ( 668 SE2d 549) (2008) (course of conduct and lustful disposition of defendant were proper purposes to admit crimes involving sexual offenses). Nor are we persuaded that Lee's age alone renders the prior offense inadmissible.

  3. Conyers v. State

    302 Ga. App. 95 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming conviction when room was rented in defendant's name; defendant made statements to undercover officer that indicated his knowledge that hotel room contained drugs; and defendant invited undercover officer into room to purchase drugs, and drugs and paraphernalia were in plain view upon entering

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Martin v. State, 294 Ga. App. 117, 120 (3) ( 668 SE2d 549) (2008). In analyzing this claim, we determine whether "there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different verdict, absent the error of counsel.

  4. Martin v. McLaughlin

    298 Ga. 44 (Ga. 2015)   Cited 27 times
    Discussing claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel generally

    His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. See Martin v. State, 294 Ga.App. 117, 668 S.E.2d 549 (2008). Martin now asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in his direct appeal because his appellate lawyer never raised a claim of error with respect to proof of venue.