Rhoden v. State

15 Citing cases

  1. Burke v. State

    No. S24A1318 (Ga. Jan. 28, 2025)

    As we concluded in Division 1, the basis for this objection is not clearly supported under current law. And an attorney is not deficient for failing to "make an objection that would call for an extension of or a change in the law." Williams v. State, 318 Ga. 83, 95 (5) (d) (896 S.E.2d 109) (2024) (citing Lowe v. State, 314 Ga. 788, 796 (2) (b) (879 S.E.2d 492) (2022); Rhoden v. State, 303 Ga. 482, 486 (2) (a) (813 S.E.2d 375) (2018)).

  2. Williams v. State

    No. S23A1159 (Ga. Jan. 17, 2024)

    (citation and punctuation omitted)); Rhoden v. State, 303 Ga. 482, 486 (2) (a) (813 S.E.2d 375) (2018) ("Counsel is not obligated to argue beyond existing precedent." (citation and punctuation omitted))

  3. Williams v. State

    316 Ga. 304 (Ga. 2023)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that it can be "objectively reasonable professional conduct" to focus on one defense theory

    (citation and punctuation omitted)); Rhoden v. State , 303 Ga. 482, 486 (2) (a), 813 S.E.2d 375 (2018) ("Counsel is not obligated to argue beyond existing precedent." (citation and punctuation omitted)).

  4. Bacon v. State

    316 Ga. 234 (Ga. 2023)   Cited 6 times

    Furthermore, "[e]ven though [Appellant's] trial counsel died prior to the hearing on the motion for new trial, [Appellant] still must overcome this presumption and is not relieved of his heavy burden of proving ineffective assistance." Rhoden v. State , 303 Ga. 482, 484 (2), 813 S.E.2d 375 (2018). "In reviewing the trial court's decision, we accept the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts."

  5. Williams v. State

    896 S.E.2d 109 (Ga. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    (citation and punctuation omitted)); Rhoden v. State, 303 Ga. 482, 486 (2) (a), 813 S.E.2d 375 (2018) ("Counsel is not obligated to argue beyond existing precedent." (citation and punctuation omitted)).

  6. Smith v. State

    313 Ga. 752 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that trial counsel was not deficient for failing to file a general demurrer, because such a filing would have been meritless

    Griffin v. State , 309 Ga. 516, 520 (2), 847 S.E.2d 168 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Rhoden v. State , 303 Ga. 482, 486 (2) (a), 813 S.E.2d 375 (2018) ("[T]here is no requirement for an attorney to prognosticate future law in order to render effective representation. Counsel is not obligated to argue beyond existing precedent."

  7. State v. Henry

    312 Ga. 632 (Ga. 2021)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that trial counsel cannot be found deficient for failing to anticipate changes in the law, but holding that the issue of prejudice "focuses on the question whether counsel's deficient performance renders the result of the trial unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair, and unreliability or unfairness does not result if the ineffectiveness of counsel does not deprive the defendant of any substantive or procedural right to which the law entitles him."

    See Esprit v. State , 305 Ga. 429, 438, 826 S.E.2d 7 (2019) ("A criminal defense attorney does not perform deficiently when he fails to advance a legal theory that would require an extension of existing precedents and the adoption of an unproven theory of law." (citation and punctuation omitted)); Rhoden v. State , 303 Ga. 482, 486, 813 S.E.2d 375 (2018) ("[T]here is no requirement for an attorney to prognosticate future law in order to render effective representation.... Counsel is not obligated to argue beyond existing precedent." (citations and punctuation omitted)).

  8. Moss v. State

    311 Ga. 123 (Ga. 2021)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that the appellant failed to "show deficient performance, as counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to make a meritless motion"

    Because existing precedent does not resolve whether "abdomen" is included in the definition of bodily "member," Moss cannot show that trial counsel's failure to file a demurrer claiming that the abdomen is not a bodily "member" amounted to deficient performance. See Griffin v. State , 309 Ga. 516, 520, 847 S.E.2d 168 (2020) (Where "we have not yet squarely decided" an issue, "trial counsel's failure to raise a novel legal argument does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.") (citation and punctuation omitted); Rhoden v. State , 303 Ga. 482, 486, 813 S.E.2d 375 (2018) ("[T]here is no requirement for an attorney to prognosticate future law in order to render effective representation. Counsel is not obligated to argue beyond existing precedent.") (citations and punctuation omitted).

  9. 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"

    Williams v. State , 304 Ga. 455, 458 (2), 818 S.E.2d 653 (2018). See also Rhoden v. State , 303 Ga. 482, 486 (2) (a), 813 S.E.2d 375 (2018) (trial counsel is not required to argue beyond existing precedent). Moreover, even if Volkova could show that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to object in this circumstance, she has failed to show that she suffered any resulting prejudice. Ultimately, the jury was provided with no information about Robinson or his conclusions.

  10. Smith v. State

    308 Ga. 81 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that counsel's performance was not deficient for failing to object to a jury instruction where the objection would have required a change, or at least a clarification, of binding precedent to prevail

    Esprit v. State , 305 Ga. 429, 438, 826 S.E.2d 7 (2019) ("A criminal defense attorney does not perform deficiently when he fails to advance a legal theory that would require ‘an extension of existing precedents and the adoption of an unproven theory of law.’ ") (quoting Williams v. State , 304 Ga. 455, 458, 818 S.E.2d 653 (2018) ); Rhoden v. State , 303 Ga. 482, 486, 813 S.E.2d 375 (2018) ("[T]here is no requirement for an attorney to prognosticate future law in order to render effective representation. ... Counsel is not obligated to argue beyond existing precedent.") (citations and punctuation omitted). It appears that the suggested pattern jury instructions had included the conflicts in evidence charge until a January 2013 update removed it.