Gabriel Jenkins died at the age of 13 months. The autopsy showed that he suffered blunt force trauma to his abdomen, resulting in hemorrhage and, peritonitis. The child’s body also displayed bruises on his face, chest, back, buttocks and thigh. The grand jury indicted Willie King, who was the live-in boyfriend of the victim’s mother, on charges of murder and lesser included offenses. The jury acquitted King of malice murder, but found him guilty on two alternative counts of felony murder, with cruelty to a child and aggravated assault being the predicate felonies, and also guilty of counts charging cruelty to a child and aggravated assault separately. The trial court found that all other counts merged into the count charging felony murder during the commission of cruelty to a child, and entered judgment of conviction on the guilty verdict as to that offense and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. King’s motion for new trial was denied, and he now brings this appeal. 1. An independent review of the record shows that, at trial, the State introduced inculpatory statements that King made to the investigating officers. King did not testify in his own defense, but his attorney attempted to show that the victim’s mother was responsible for beating the child. King’s inculpatory statements were challenged as untruths that he told to protect his girlfriend. Construing the evidence most strongly in support of the guilty verdict, however, the jury was authorized to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that King violated OCGA § 16-5-70 b 3 by hitting the child, thereby maliciously causing him to suffer cruel and excessive physical pain and, eventually, death. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979; Sauerwein v. State , 280 Ga. 438 1 629 SE2d 235 2006.
2. King contends that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel, because his trial attorney did not provide him with effective legal representation. To prevail on that claim requires proof that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668 104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674 1984. In order to meet this burden, King must overcome the strong presumption that the performance of his defense counsel falls within the broad range of reasonable conduct. Cit. Here, that presumption was reinforced by the testimony of King’s trial attorney herself, who appeared at the hearing on the motion for new trial where she explained her challenged actions and inactions. Having heard all of the evidence, including counsel’s testimony, the trial court found no merit in the ineffectiveness claim. On appeal, this Court accepts the trial court’s findings of fact, unless they are clearly erroneous. However, the trial court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Cit. Wiggins v. State , 280 Ga. 627, 628-629 2 632 SE2d 80 2006.
