Mattox v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Lopez v. State

    310 Ga. 529 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 10 times

    And the failure to make a meritless objection cannot provide the basis upon which to find ineffective assistance of counsel. See Mattox v. State , 308 Ga. 302, 304-05 (2), 840 S.E.2d 373 (2020). (c) In two related enumerations of error, Lopez claims that trial counsel failed to properly investigate and introduce all of the GBI's investigative summaries and failed to call GBI Special Agent Marko Jones to testify about his investigative summaries.

  2. Hardeman v. State

    357 Ga. App. 649 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Mattox v. State , 308 Ga. 302, 305 (3), 840 S.E.2d 373 (2020). When evaluating the fourth prong of the Barker test,

  3. Wood v. State

    316 Ga. 811 (Ga. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    To establish an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a defendant must show "a reasonable probability that, but for his lawyer's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Mattox v. State , 308 Ga. 302, 304 (2), 840 S.E.2d 373 (2020). Accordingly, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to allow an expert retained post-trial to examine and test the physical evidence admitted at trial for purposes of developing an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim absent a showing that "favorable testing results" would reveal "that the outcome of trial would have been different had trial counsel pursued such testing."

  4. Terrell v. State

    313 Ga. 120 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that the appellant had not shown that a motion to strike a juror would have succeeded where, although the juror said that "she might be influenced by her cousin’s conviction for armed robbery and her ex-boyfriend’s shooting," she also said that she "would attempt to separate" her prior experience "from anything she heard in the case and would do her best to be fair"

    Accordingly, Terrell is unable to show the requisite prejudice from the delay in his appeal, and this enumeration of error fails. See Mattox v. State , 308 Ga. 302, 305 (3), 840 S.E.2d 373 (2020) (denying speedy appeal claim from 2005 conviction because defendant failed to show prejudice); Loadholt v. State , 286 Ga. 402, 406 (4), 687 S.E.2d 824 (2010) (no prejudice in delay pending appeal where enumerations raised were without merit). 2. Terrell next asserts that his constitutional rights were violated when the State improperly commented on his right to remain silent.

  5. Volkova v. State

    311 Ga. 187 (Ga. 2021)   Cited 3 times
    Treating the rule about when attorney-client privilege is waived as to communications with "an expert engaged by the attorney" as a "judicially created exclusionary rule based on an interpretation of Georgia’s Old Evidence Code" that has been "statutorily abrogated by the enactment of our current Evidence Code"

    As such, Volkova's contention that counsel performed deficiently by failing to object based on abrogated precedent has no merit. See Mattox v. State , 308 Ga. 302, 304-305 (2), 840 S.E.2d 373 (2020) (failure to make a meritless objection cannot provide the basis upon which to find ineffective assistance of counsel). OCGA § 24-4-401 defines "relevant evidence" as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

  6. Fisher v. State

    309 Ga. 814 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that defendant's flight from police, with other evidence, corroborated accomplice testimony

    Where a prosecutor's closing argument was "based on permissible inferences and legitimately supported by the facts in evidence," an objection to the argument on the ground that the prosecutor was mischaracterizing the evidence would have been "meritless," and counsel's failure to make such an objection therefore "is not evidence of ineffective assistance." Mattox v. State , 308 Ga. 302, 304-305, 840 S.E.2d 373 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). Appellant focuses in isolation on the prosecutor's comment during closing argument that Clark did not "[t]ell somebody" about seeing Lewis before Cullins's shooting to argue that the prosecutor improperly attacked Clark's credibility, because Clark had in fact told his story to Appellant's previous trial counsel.