Gibson v. State

The defendant could not show that his trial counsel was ineffective because the speculative nature of any harm to the defendant prevented him from demonstrating a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had his counsel moved for a mistrial.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Gabriel Gibson appeals from his convictions for possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, trafficking in MDMA “ecstacy”1, and trafficking in cocaine. In his sole enumeration of error, Gibson asserts that he is entitled to a new trial based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree and affirm. The record before us shows that the State charged Gibson, Roosevelt Vines, Carla Fabian, and Jordan Cohen with identical drug-related crimes based upon drugs found in a car occupied by all four defendants. Fabian was driving the car, Vines was in the front passenger seat, Gibson was sitting in the right rear passenger seat, and Cohen was sitting in the passenger seat behind the driver. When a police officer first talked to Fabian after pulling her over in a traffic stop, he smelled an “overwhelming odor of marijuana.” The arresting officer testified that the marijuana smell was so powerful that he would find it hard to believe that anyone sitting in the car could not smell it.

When the officer searched the cargo area in the rear of the passenger compartment, he found a backpack containing 97 grams of crack cocaine, 29.1 grams of powder cocaine, 980 ecstacy pills, and 2.9 pounds of marijuana with a combined street value of $38,905. The backpack also contained: a fully-loaded 30-round .40 caliber Glock magazine; a plastic bag containing 36 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition; a Hi-Point 9mm semi-automatic pistol in the center console; a .40 caliber Glock on the floorboard near where Gibson’s feet had been before he exited the car; a .40 caliber Taurus located under the center armrest of the back seat; and a piece of paper on which Gibson had written the address of his girlfriend in Norcross, Georgia.

Gibson v. State

The defendant could not show that his trial counsel was ineffective because the speculative nature of any harm to the defendant prevented him from demonstrating a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had his counsel moved for a mistrial.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report