Shelton v. State ( 2022 )

In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: February 15, 2022
S21A0935. SHELTON v. STATE.
LAGRUA, Justice.
Appellant James Shelton was convicted of malice murder in
connection with the death of Manuel “Manny” Palmer. 1 Appellant
contends on appeal that (1) the trial court erred in denying his
1 The crimes occurred on April 28, 2017. On June 29, 2018, a Douglas
County grand jury indicted Appellant for malice murder, felony murder, and
aggravated assault. At a trial from June 3 to 7, 2019, a jury found Appellant
guilty of all counts. The trial court sentenced Appellant to serve life in prison
for malice murder and purported to merge the aggravated assault count into
the felony murder count. However, the felony murder count was vacated by
operation of law. See Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 372 (4) (434 SE2d 479)
(1993). Accordingly, the trial court should have merged Appellant’s
aggravated assault count into the malice murder count, not the felony murder
count. See id. However, this merger error makes no practical difference. See
Marshall v. State, 309 Ga. 698, 700 (2) (848 SE2d 389) (2020).
Appellant filed a motion for new trial on June 25, 2019, which he
amended on January 27, 2020. After a hearing on March 9, 2020, the trial
court denied the motion for new trial on January 19, 2021. On February 16,
2021, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, which then
transferred the case to this Court on March 23, 2021. The appeal was docketed
to the August 2021 term of this Court and submitted for a decision on the
briefs.
motion for directed verdict and (2) trial counsel was constitutionally
deficient for failing to obtain a psychologist’s evaluation regarding
his criminal responsibility. For the reasons outlined below, we
affirm.
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, the
evidence presented at trial showed that Juanita Wix and Palmer
were neighbors and that Juanita was Palmer’s landlord. On April
28, 2017, Juanita was returning home after dark. As she drove up
to her home, she noticed that Palmer’s home on Vansant Road was
completely dark with its front door ajar. According to Juanita, “this
was very out of [Palmer’s] usual routine.”2 Thus, at 10:38 p.m., she
called the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office.
Ten minutes later, the police arrived at Palmer’s home and
found Palmer inside unconscious on the floor, still breathing but
with a roofing hammer protruding from his head. EMTs transported
him to the hospital, where he died on May 5, 2017. The medical
2 Juanita testified that Palmer typically would turn on both an internal
and an external light around 9:00 p.m., just prior to going to bed with the doors
closed.
2
examiner testified that there were no defensive wounds found on
Palmer’s body and that the cause of death was sharp-force injury of
the head and delayed complications, including intracranial pressure
and bleeding. The manner of death was homicide.
Crime scene investigators were unable to identify any
fingerprints on the roofing hammer. Clifford Wiley, who
occasionally employed Palmer, testified that the roofing hammer
found in Palmer’s head was the one that he previously gave to
Palmer.
On the night of the murder, investigating officers interviewed
neighbors, including Juanita and Mary Wix. 3 According to Juanita,
she had seen Palmer and Appellant moving scrap metal and other
materials to Palmer’s home earlier in the day. Stephen Hughes, who
worked with Appellant, testified that Appellant and Palmer were
good friends who worked together and lived within walking distance
of one another. Hughes testified that Palmer would often give
3 Mary and Juanita Wix are not related and lived in separate homes in
the area.
3
Appellant rides because Appellant did not own a car. On the day of
the murder, Appellant approached Juanita while he was moving the
scrap metal with Palmer and asked if he could park a trailer in front
of Palmer’s home because Appellant was being evicted. Appellant’s
girlfriend at the time, Cathy Vinyard, later told police officers that
Appellant had found an eviction notice on his mobile home, and he
wanted to “go up to the courthouse so that he [could] file a notice
with the courthouse fighting the eviction.” 4 Juanita told Appellant
that he could not park the trailer on Palmer’s property and that he
had to remove the material from in front of Palmer’s home.
Mary, who lived next door to Palmer, told police officers that
she saw Palmer and Appellant in Palmer’s car earlier in the day.
She testified that she saw the two of them moving scrap material
during the day and placing the material between her house and
Palmer’s mobile home. She testified that they were moving the
material from Appellant’s home because Appellant “had to move
4 Vinyard was not a witness at trial; this fact was established through
the testimony of Sergeant Kenneth Aycock, the lead investigator who
interviewed Vinyard.
4
out.” Mary testified that Palmer and Appellant had moved material
onto her property before and that she had issues in the past with
this because it was messy. She approached the two men about this
as they were moving material, and she noted that as she
approached, they were “fussing” and “arguing.” She also saw them
haul Palmer’s disabled car away on a trailer in order to sell it. Based
on this information, the police officers identified Appellant as a
person of interest.
Based on information that Appellant and Palmer were
scrapping Palmer’s car, the police retrieved security video from
Alsobrooks Recycling. Security video recordings presented to the
jury showed Appellant and Palmer arriving at Alsobrooks at 2:50
p.m. on the day of the murder, scrapping Palmer’s disabled car at
3:09 p.m., and receiving money in exchange for the car. Appellant
and Palmer then went to the Douglas County Magistrate Court.
Court records show that by 4:00 p.m., Appellant had filed an answer
and counterclaim to the eviction notice he had received.
Shortly after 5:00 p.m., Appellant and Palmer were seen on a
5
security video recording from a nearby RaceTrac gas station5
entering the station’s convenience store. Appellant was seen
wearing a dark shirt, blue jeans, and dark shoes. The video showed
Palmer and Appellant each making purchases around 5:10 p.m. and
exiting the convenience store by 5:11 p.m. Crime scene investigators
found a RaceTrac receipt in Palmer’s car that showed a five-dollar
gas purchase made around the time that Palmer and Appellant were
seen on the security video at the RaceTrac.
According to Juanita, Palmer came to visit her alone at her
home between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. to drop off some of the money he
obtained from scrapping his car. 6 She testified that Palmer told her
that he was going to stop talking or associating with Appellant and
that he was “giving up the partying lifestyle.” Tessa Watkins, a
neighbor, testified that Appellant and Palmer frequently drank and
partied together at Appellant’s home. According to Juanita, Palmer
5 The record indicates that the RaceTrac gas station was between the
courthouse and Appellant’s home.
6 Juanita had agreed to sell a truck to Palmer, for which Palmer would
pay her whenever he could.
6
informed her during their conversation that he was either going to
tell or had already told Appellant of his intention to stop associating
with him. 7 At the end of their conversation, which lasted about an
hour, Palmer told her that he was going to stop by Ingles.
Around 6:45 p.m., Palmer was seen in a security video
recording from a nearby Ingles store making a purchase. Crime
scene investigators found an Ingles receipt in Palmer’s yard and
unopened groceries from Ingles on the floor in Palmer’s home.
According to the Ingles receipt, a variety of groceries was purchased
at 6:55 p.m.
Around 7:00 p.m., William Watkins, a neighbor of Palmer’s,
saw him returning to his home carrying Ingles bags. Palmer was
not seen again until the police found him after the assault.
A security video recording from Sheehan Metal Products,
which is within walking distance of Palmer’s home, recorded
7 At trial, Juanita testified that Palmer “said that he was going to tell”
Appellant about his desire to stop partying with Appellant. But during her
police interview in the month after the crime, she told police that Palmer had
already communicated this to Appellant by the time they spoke that afternoon.
7
Appellant walking on Vansant Road towards Palmer’s home at 7:20
p.m. 8 In the security video, Appellant is seen wearing the same dark
shirt, blue jeans, and dark shoes that he was wearing in the
RaceTrac convenience store.
The Smith family — husband and wife Brandon and Brooke,
and Brandon’s brother Dylan — lived together in a mobile home that
they rented from Appellant; they lived about 100 yards away from
where Appellant lived. Brandon and Brooke were at home when
Appellant showed up at their home around 6:00 p.m., drunk and
weeping. Appellant stated that he was going to die and that doctors
told him he had only six months to live. According to Brooke,
Appellant stayed for about 30 to 40 minutes and then left. Appellant
was not at the house when Brooke left for work around 8:00 or 9:00
p.m., and she did not see Appellant again until the next day.
However, Brandon testified that Appellant was at the Smith home
when he went to sleep around 11:00 p.m.
8 The timestamp on the recording was 7:04 p.m., but two witnesses
testified that the timestamp on the security video was 16minutes behind real
time.
8
Dylan saw Appellant and Palmer together on the day of the
murder and testified that the two seemed “normal” at the time.
When Dylan later returned to the Smith home between midnight
and 1:00 a.m., he found Appellant sleeping on the floor inside
Dylan’s room. Appellant told Dylan that someone was looking for
him, which Dylan understood to mean law enforcement.
The next morning, when Brandon awoke around 10:30 a.m.,
Appellant was still at the Smith home. Appellant then left for about
five or ten minutes, and when he returned, he asked Brandon to take
him to the hospital. Appellant did not tell Brandon why he needed
to go to the hospital. Appellant also asked Dylan if he could borrow
some clothes, and Dylan lent Appellant a pair of brown shorts.
Brandon took Appellant to the hospital around 1:00 p.m. A
security video recording from the WellStar Hospital in Douglasville
showed Appellant in a white shirt, brown shorts, black shoes, and a
hat entering the emergency room front desk area at 1:38 p.m.
Two days later, a Douglas County Sheriff’s deputy was at the
hospital for an unrelated matter. The deputy – who had received an
9
email that included a picture of Appellant and named him as a
person of interest – saw Appellant in the hospital’s psychiatric ward
and notified Sergeant Kenneth Aycock, who was leading the
investigation into Palmer’s murder.
Aycock went to the hospital on the same day to interview
Appellant. Aycock testified that he asked Appellant “if he had heard
about his friend getting hurt,” and Appellant “stated no without
asking [Aycock] or even knowing who [Aycock] was talking about.”
Aycock then told Appellant that he was referring to Palmer.
Appellant told Aycock that the last time he saw Palmer was when
they scrapped Palmer’s car. He said that he and Palmer then went
to the courthouse to file the counterclaim to Appellant’s eviction
notice. Appellant told Aycock that he and Palmer then returned to
Appellant’s home and that Palmer left after “a short period of time.”
Appellant told Aycock that he then went to the Smiths’ home for the
remainder of the night and stayed until the next day. Aycock noted
that during this interview, Appellant was very talkative when
discussing fishing and other topics, but “just got quiet every time
10
[Aycock] asked him a direct question about Palmer.”
Aycock obtained a search warrant for Appellant’s personal
belongings that he had at the hospital, as well as for Appellant’s
DNA. He retrieved Appellant’s clothing and cell phone from hospital
staff and obtained a buccal swab from Appellant to test for
Appellant’s DNA. Aycock recovered brown cargo shorts, black shoes,
a belt, and a hat. 9 Aycock also obtained and executed a search
warrant for Appellant’s home, seeking clothing either matching
what Appellant was wearing in security camera footage or
containing bloodstains. Aycock retrieved a black shirt, black shoes,
and a pair of jeans. Palmer’s DNA was not found on any clothing
recovered either from the hospital or from Appellant’s home.
Aycock also submitted Appellant’s cell phone to a forensics lab.
The data extracted from the phone showed that Appellant’s phone
made several calls on the night that Palmer was killed. At 7:01 p.m.,
Appellant’s phone called Palmer’s phone, and the phone call lasted
9 The white shirt that Appellant was seen wearing in the hospital
security video recording was not recovered.
11
58 seconds. At 7:05 p.m., Appellant’s phone made an 18-second
phone call to Hughes, who testified that Appellant told him during
the call that he was being evicted and was “sort of disturbed about
it.” At 7:06 p.m., Appellant’s phone called a phone number
associated with a man named Larry Pierce; this phone call did not
connect. Finally, at 7:10 p.m., Appellant’s phone placed a 19-second
call to Palmer’s phone. After this call, Appellant’s phone was turned
off and no other phone calls were made. When Aycock recovered
Appellant’s phone from the hospital two days later, the phone was
still turned off. The cell tower information from the phone calls
made between 7:01 and 7:10 p.m. placed Appellant within the area
of his home and Sheehan Metal Products. The evidence at trial
showed that calls made from Appellant’s cell phone during this time
would have pinged off the same cell phone tower regardless of
whether they were placed at Palmer’s home, Appellant’s home, or
the Smith home.
On May 15, two weeks after Aycock’s interview with Appellant
at the hospital, Aycock encountered Appellant at the Douglas
12
County courthouse, where Appellant was appearing for proceedings
related to his eviction. Aycock asked Appellant to return with him
to the police station. At the police station, Aycock interviewed
Appellant, and Appellant repeated his previous alibi that he was at
the Smith home all of Friday night. By this time, the police had
obtained and reviewed the surveillance video from Sheehan Metal
Products, which showed Appellant walking down Vansant Road
towards Palmer’s home at 7:04 p.m.
During the interview, Aycock asked about the clothes that
Appellant was wearing on the night of the murder and why
Appellant had asked to borrow clothes from Dylan on the morning
that Appellant visited the hospital. Appellant had no explanation
about what happened to the clothes he was wearing on the night of
the murder. Aycock also asked whether Appellant knew why
Palmer’s blood had been found on Appellant’s shoes.10 Appellant
responded that Palmer had cut his finger while in Appellant’s yard
and blood splattered on his shoes. Aycock then asked Appellant
10 Palmer’s blood was not actually found on Appellant’s shoes.
13
what he knew about Palmer’s death. Appellant explained that he
heard that Palmer was “robbed and left in a ditch,” that Vinyard had
told him that Palmer had been hit in the head with something, and
that he understood police to be looking for a murder weapon “like a
machete or a hammer.” After this line of questioning, Appellant said
he needed to take a smoke break and left the room for about 12
minutes. After he returned, Aycock continued the interview for
about 15 minutes. Towards the end of the interview, Aycock began
to inquire into Appellant’s mental health, at which point Appellant
ended the interview and left.
The police continued the investigation, and on June 8, 2018,
more than a year after Palmer’s death, an arrest warrant for
Appellant was issued. Police officers contacted Appellant’s family
members to determine his whereabouts. On June 9, police officers
discovered that Appellant had been admitted into a Paulding
County hospital for a psychological evaluation. Appellant was
arrested at the hospital.
After Appellant was arrested, Aycock obtained and executed a
14
search warrant for Appellant’s complete medical history. According
to Aycock, Appellant’s medical records showed that on April 29,
2017, the day after Palmer was attacked, Appellant checked into the
WellStar Douglasville hospital for neck, back, and wrist pain,
claiming that he fell out of the back of a pickup truck. The medical
records did not show evidence of any injury, but when Appellant was
going to be discharged, he refused and stated that he would “jump
out in front of a car” if he was discharged. Doctors placed Appellant
on suicide watch and transferred him to Cobb Behavioral Health
Crisis Center. He was later discharged. The medical records also
show that on May 19, 2017, four days after Aycock encountered
Appellant at the courthouse and interviewed him at the police
station, Appellant checked into a hospital stating that he was
“feeling depressed, not in his right mind, and that he would walk out
in front of traffic.” Aycock also testified that on June 9, 2018, one
day after police officers called Appellant’s family to pursue his arrest
warrant, he checked into the hospital stating that he was going to
commit suicide.
15
2. Appellant first contends that the trial court erred when it
denied his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of
the State’s evidence. He argues that the evidence presented was
insufficient to establish the elements of malice murder because the
evidence failed to place Appellant at the crime scene. We disagree. 11
A court may direct a verdict of acquittal where there is no
conflict in the evidence and, with all reasonable deductions and
inferences, the evidence demands a verdict of acquittal. See OCGA
§ 17-9-1 (a). “The standard of review for the denial of a motion for a
directed verdict of acquittal is the same as for determining the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.” Fitts v. State,
312 Ga. 134, 141 (3) (859 SE2d 79) (2021). Under that standard,
“the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
11 Appellant’s challenges to the guilty verdicts on his felony murder and
aggravated assault counts are moot because, as outlined in footnote 1 above,
those counts were vacated or merged. See Kemp v. State, 303 Ga. 385, 388 (1)
(a) n.2 (810 SE2d 515) (2018).
16
reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B)
(99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979) (emphasis in original); see also
Thompson v. State, 302 Ga. 533, 536 (II) (807 SE2d 899) (2017).
Upon review, the evidence presented in this case was sufficient
to sustain Appellant’s conviction for malice murder. The jury was
authorized to find that Appellant was seen with Palmer throughout
the afternoon of the murder; was arguing and became upset with
Palmer on that day; called Palmer and several others, in an agitated
state, around the time that Palmer was last seen alive; made a final
call to Palmer before turning his phone off; feared capture by police
on the night of Palmer’s murder; changed clothes after believing
someone was looking for him; and was engaging with police during
his interview except when asked about Palmer’s murder, at which
point Appellant became quiet or nonresponsive.
Further, the jury was entitled to disbelieve Appellant’s claim
that he remained at the Smith home for the entirety of the evening
of the murder. Security recordings from Sheehan Metal Products
showed Appellant walking toward Palmer’s house around the time
17
that Palmer was last seen alive and after Appellant first appeared
at the Smith home. And although Brooke and Brandon confirmed
that Appellant came to their home around 6:00 p.m., Brooke also
testified that Appellant left the home about 30 minutes later. Thus,
the jury was authorized to believe that Appellant was not only
walking towards Palmer’s home around the time that Palmer was
last seen alive, but also that he repeatedly lied about it to the police
when he was interviewed.
Taken together, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient
to authorize the jury to find Appellant guilty of the crimes for which
he was convicted. See Sapp v. State, 300 Ga. 768, 769 (798 SE2d
226) (2017) (evidence was sufficient to deny motion for directed
verdict where appellant was seen in a security camera recording
near where the victim was found, and appellant appeared nervous
and sweaty and changed clothes after the murder). Accordingly, the
trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for a directed
verdict, and this enumeration fails.
3. Appellant next contends that his trial counsel provided
18
constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to pursue a
psychological evaluation that would determine Appellant’s criminal
responsibility at the time of the crime. This enumeration fails.
(a) Appellant was represented by lead trial counsel Christian
Bonet and co-counsel James Kiger. Prior to trial, trial counsel
requested, and the trial court entered, an order for a psychological
evaluation to determine (1) Appellant’s competency to stand trial
and (2) Appellant’s criminal responsibility or sanity at the time of
the crime. A licensed psychologist from the Georgia Department of
Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities (“DBHDD”)
began that evaluation on July 31, 2018.
During the evaluation, Appellant told the evaluator that he
had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) and memory
problems; that he had been “physically, mentally, and sexually
abused”; that he had a history of suicide attempts and self-injurious
behavior since he was nine years old; and that he experienced both
depressive and psychotic symptoms. Appellant claimed that he
heard voices and noises that others did not hear, but “when [the
19
evaluator] asked to provide an example, he stated, ‘I’m not
answering because you gave me the option not to,’ . . . [and] he
spontaneously stated, ‘I see things like an aura around people when
no one is there . . . in the air. Right now I’m seeing the static
channel.’” Appellant also stated during the evaluation that he often
“smell[ed] colors.”
When reviewing Appellant’s mental health history, the
evaluator determined that Appellant had been admitted to a
hospital three times since 1991 for mental health reasons. But the
evaluator also noted that Appellant’s description of his mental
symptoms at the time of the court-ordered evaluation was not
typical and that his descriptions were “inconsistent with his history
and observed general functioning.” The evaluator administered the
Miller-Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test “to assess whether
[Appellant] was exaggerating/feigning his symptoms.” The results
indicated that he was “likely falsely reporting symptoms of mental
illness.”
During the competency portion of the evaluation, Appellant
20
was able to describe, define, and understand various aspects of
court, the adversarial nature of legal proceedings, and certain legal
terms (such as guilty, not guilty, plea bargain, and evidence). The
evaluator also explained the not guilty by reason of insanity
(“NGRI”) defense to Appellant. See OCGA §§ 16-3-2 12 and 16-3-3. 13
Appellant understood that the defense meant “you did it but didn’t
know it because you were not in your right mind [due to a mental
illness].” Appellant also stated that the defense “was an alternative
to resolving his case but wanted to discuss this with his attorney
prior to considering this defense.” Accordingly, the evaluator did not
proceed with the second portion of the evaluation that would have
assessed Appellant’s criminal responsibility at the time of the crime.
The evaluator ultimately concluded that Appellant was
12 OCGA § 16-3-2 provides: “A person shall not be found guilty of a crime
if, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the
person did not have mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong
in relation to such act, omission, or negligence.”
13 OCGA § 16-3-3 provides: “A person shall not be found guilty of a crime
when, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the
person, because of mental disease, injury, or congenital deficiency, acted as he
did because of a delusional compulsion as to such act which overmastered his
will to resist committing the crime.”
21
competent to stand trial but made no conclusion as to Appellant’s
criminal responsibility. However, she noted that “[i]f Mr. Shelton
plans to pursue an NGRI defense, I respectfully request DBHDD be
notified so the [criminal responsibility] evaluation can be
scheduled.” Appellant’s trial counsel did not reach out to the
evaluator again about the criminal responsibility portion of the
evaluation, and Appellant now asserts that this amounted to
ineffective assistance of counsel.
(b) To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
defendant must show both that his counsel’s performance was
deficient and that the deficient performance resulted in prejudice to
the defendant. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (III)
(104 SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984); Valentine v. State, 293 Ga. 533,
537 (3) (748 SE2d 437) (2013). To prove deficiency, Appellant must
show that his counsel “performed [their] duties at trial in an
objectively unreasonable way, considering all the circumstances,
and in the light of prevailing professional norms.” Valentine, 293
Ga. at 537 (3). To prove prejudice, Appellant must show “a
22
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors,
the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable
probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
outcome.” Strickland, 443 U. S. at 694 (III) (B). If an appellant fails
to meet the burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, we
need not examine the other prong. See Sullivan, 308 Ga. at 510 (2).
We conclude that Appellant has failed to show prejudice.
Even assuming that trial counsel performed deficiently by
failing to pursue a psychological evaluation that indicated
Appellant’s criminal responsibility at the time of the crime,
Appellant has failed to show that any such deficiency would have
prejudiced his case. “In Georgia, a defendant is presumed to be
sane.” McElrath v. State, 308 Ga. 104, 106 (1) (b) (839 SE2d 573)
(2020). Further, “[t]he burden is on the defendant to show that he
has a mental condition that should have been investigated and
offered as proof of a defense to criminal liability or of his
incompetence to stand trial.” Valentine, 293 Ga. at 537 (3) (citation
and punctuation omitted). “It is not enough to show merely that
23
counsel unreasonably failed to inquire into [Appellant’s] mental
state — he must show a reasonable probability that such an
evaluation would have affected the outcome at trial.” Id.While the psychological evaluator noted that Appellant
claimed a history of mental health problems and delusions during
his psychological evaluation, the psychological evaluator also
determined that Appellant was likely feigning mental health illness
symptoms. Also, Appellant failed to present any evidence at the
motion for new trial hearing indicating that Appellant was in fact
suffering from mental illness at the time of the crime such that he
would be able to avoid criminal responsibility. See Valentine, 293
Ga. at 537 (3) (the appellant “presented no expert testimony showing
what a pretrial evaluation could have revealed which would have
been favorable to the defense had counsel requested one”).
Therefore, Appellant has failed to establish that there is a
reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been
different had his trial counsel requested an evaluation regarding his
criminal responsibility at the time of the crime. See Mims v. State,
24
304 Ga. 851, 855-856 (2) (a) (823 SE2d 325) (2019) (“Mims has not
shown what the result of any additional examination would have
been, and thus fails to show that the result of her trial would have
been different if such an evaluation had been pursued.” (citation
omitted)). Accordingly, this enumeration of error fails.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
25