Manriquez v. State

A jury found Miguel Manriquez guilty of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced him to life imprisonment for malice murder, 20 years in prison for aggravated assault and five years confinement for the firearm offense. The felony murder verdict was vacated by operation of law. See Malcolm v. State , 263 Ga. 369, 372 5 434 SE2d 479 1993. Manriquez appeals after the denial of a motion for new trial. 1. Construed most strongly in support of the verdicts, the evidence shows that Manriquez shot and killed Ezequiel Nunez, and threatened Joe Hall with a gun. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Manriquez guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder and the other offenses. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.

2. Manriquez contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call four witnesses who gave descriptions of the shooter that differed from the description given by Hall. To prevail on an ineffectiveness claim, a defendant has the burden of establishing that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington , 466, U.S. 668 104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674 1984; Hunt v. State , 278 Ga. 479, 480 604 SE2d 144 2004. When a defendant claims that trial counsel performed deficiently in failing to call a witness for trial, the defendant may not rely on hearsay and speculation, including prior unsworn statements, to prove the prejudice prong of his ineffectiveness claim. Cits.