Harris v. State

The defendant failed to identify any improper factor in the stop of his vehicle pursuant to a BOLO issued immediately after a bank robbery.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A Jenkins County jury found Jamel Harris guilty of robbery by force for his participation in the robbery of the Ogeechee Valley Bank in Millen. Without challenging the sufficiency of the evidence against him, he appeals, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; that the trial court erred in permitting hearsay testimony concerning his statement to law enforcement; and that the trial court erred in sua sponte instructing the jury about a defendant’s right to remain silent after arrest. Finding no merit in any of these claims, we affirm. 1. Harris first contends his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. To prevail on this claim, Harris must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that but for this deficiency the outcome of the trial would have been different.1 “Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland standard is fatal to an ineffective assistance claim. Cit.”2 In addition, a strong presumption exists that trial counsel performed within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, and a trial court’s determination that Harris was afforded effective assistance of counsel will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.3

a Harris admits that his trial attorney “did investigate and speak with various witnesses, but he did not file either pretrial discovery or a pretrial motion to suppress the initial stop and seizure of the defendant.” However, the State had an “open file” policy, making a formal request for pretrial discovery unnecessary. Harris’ trial attorney testified at the motion for new trial hearing that he had received a copy of all of the documents in the State’s file. Harris fails to state what more would have been obtained had discovery motions been filed.4

Harris v. State

The defendant failed to identify any improper factor in the stop of his vehicle pursuant to a BOLO issued immediately after a bank robbery.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report