Cornell v. State

Wilmer Cornell appeals from his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.1 Cornell claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a charge on accident and in not presenting an expert witness to refute an expert for the State. Because trial counsel was not ineffective, we affirm. 1. The evidence at trial showed that on October 14, 2000, the victim got into a fight with Cornell’s brother outside of a strip club. Cornell’s brother called Cornell at home and told him about the incident. Cornell got his gun, joined his brother outside the strip club, and they both searched for the victim. Cornell testified that the victim ran at them and pulled up his shirt, which made Cornell think that he had a gun. Cornell shot him once in the chest. Although Cornell claims that he shot only to scare the victim and to “back him off,” witnesses testified that before shooting Cornell told the victim that no one was going to mess with his brother. Cornell also stood over the victim and prepared to shoot him again, but was dissuaded by one of the witnesses.

After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination of guilt, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Cornell was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted.2