Wynn v. State

A jury found Harold Wynn guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Wynn appeals from the conviction, contending trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to properly investigate the arresting officer’s stated basis for stopping him. According to Wynn, had counsel done so, counsel’s cross-examination of the officer would have been more effective and the jury might have found him not guilty. Finding no error, we affirm. To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a defendant must prove both that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability that the trial result would have been different if not for the deficient performance.1 In reviewing the trial court’s decision, we accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, and we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.2

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,3 it shows that at approximately 4:00 a.m. the Vidalia Police Department received a report that a man was beating a woman outside on East Seventh Street. An officer arrived at the location given in the report, but neither the man nor the woman was there. A woman nearby said she saw the assault and that the assailant was wearing a yellow shirt. About 20 minutes later, several blocks away, the officer saw a man in a yellow shirt running across the highway, away from an open convenience store. The man stopped running as the officer approached, then resumed running when the officer passed. The officer was suspicious and called for assistance.