CourtListener 10680353

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: April 16, 2024

S24A0117. THOMPSON v. THE STATE.

COLVIN, Justice.

Appellant Diante Thompson appeals his convictions for malice

murder and other crimes related to the stabbing death of Bobby

Jermaine Ricks.1 On appeal, Appellant contends that the evidence

1Bobby Ricks died on October 11, 2017. On September 25, 2018, a
Hancock County grand jury charged Appellant, Demarco Draughn, Benny
Hayward, and Xavier Levatte with malice murder (Count 1), felony murder
(Count 2), and aggravated assault (Count 3).
On June 20, 2019, Appellant filed a motion to sever Appellant’s trial from
his co-indictees’ trial, which the trial court granted. Appellant’s co-indictees
were convicted of malice murder and other crimes, and their malice murder
convictions were affirmed by this Court in Draughn v. State, 311 Ga. 378 (858
SE2d 8) (2021). Following a jury trial held from October 28 through October
30, 2019, the jury found Appellant guilty on all charges. On October 30, 2019,
the trial court sentenced Appellant to life in prison without the possibility of
parole for malice murder (Count 1). The felony-murder count (Count 2) was
vacated by operation of law. Though the trial court purported to merge Count
3 into Count 2, Count 3 actually merged into Count 1, because Count 2 had
been vacated. See Favors v. State, 296 Ga. 842, 848 (5) (770 SE2d 855) (2015).
Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial on November 8, 2019, and
amended it through new counsel on February 10, 2023. Following a hearing on
July 12, 2023, the trial court denied Appellant’s amended motion for new trial
presented at trial was constitutionally insufficient to sustain his

convictions and that the trial court erred by failing to grant a new

trial on the general grounds, as provided in OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and

5-5-21. Appellant also argues that the State committed reversible

error in its closing argument in two ways: by telling the jury that it

needed to adjudicate the guilt of Appellant’s co-indictees, who were

tried separately, and by allegedly shifting the burden of proof to

Appellant. Lastly, Appellant argues that his trial counsel was

constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the same allegedly

improper statements made by the State referenced above. For the

reasons stated below, we affirm Appellant’s convictions.

1. The evidence at trial showed the following. Ricks was killed

in the H-1 dormitory of Hancock State Prison on the evening of

October 11, 2017. H-1 can house up to 96 inmates and was full or

mostly full at the time of the crimes. Security camera footage of the

on July 14, 2023.
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals on
August 11, 2023, and the case was transferred to this Court on September 1,
2023. This appeal was docketed to this Court’s term beginning in December
2023 and submitted for a decision on the briefs.
2
common area in H-1 on the evening of October 11 was entered into

evidence and played at trial. The video showed the following. The

shower area of the H-1 dormitory contained six shower stalls, with

three on the main floor and three on the second floor. At 11:13 p.m.,

Correctional Officer Erica Hood walked across the shower area,

opened the door to the TV room, and spoke to various inmates,

including an inmate who identified himself at trial as Jermel

Tannahill.

A few minutes later, a group of five inmates gathered in the far

corner of the common area and walked toward the shower stalls on

the main floor. One of these inmates later identified himself to

investigators and again at trial as Patrick Renfroe. As the inmates

approached the showers, Renfroe stopped in front of his cell and

stood looking out across the common area. The four remaining

inmates continued walking without pause and entered the shower

in which Ricks was bathing. There, they started to fight him. Ricks

fought his way out of the shower stall and ran away, naked and

bleeding, with the four inmates chasing him. Ricks ran toward the

3
exit, which is enclosed by a metal gate known as the “sally port” and

fell to the ground. As Ricks laid on the ground, the four inmates

stabbed him repeatedly with sharp metal objects.

Ricks quickly got off the floor, leaving a pool of blood on the

ground, and ran back toward the showers. The attackers continued

to chase Ricks. Ricks then cut back toward the sally port, which

Officer Hood opened, and Ricks entered. The attackers dispersed

back toward their cells. Ricks was transported by ambulance to the

hospital shortly thereafter but died en route.

At trial, multiple witnesses testified about the identities of the

four inmates who attacked Ricks. Officer Hood testified that she was

the only correctional officer assigned to the floor of H-1 that night

and that she was starting to lock the dormitory down for the evening

when the fight broke out. She testified that she did not know the

names of any of the attackers, but she recognized one as having

“dark eyes, jagged teeth, and a receding hairline.” Officer Hood

4
identified this attacker at trial as Appellant. 2

Tannahill, one of the inmates who spoke to Officer Hood

immediately prior to the attack, testified that he observed the fight

from the TV room, which had six windows from which he could

clearly see into the shower area. He testified that he knew one of the

attackers by his tattoos and haircut and that he knew the others by

their nicknames: “Golds,” “Glock Nine,” and “Jersey.” Tannahill told

GBI agents in an interview that the inmate he recognized by his

tattoos and haircut was Demarco Draughn; “Golds” was the

nickname for inmate Benny Hayward, who had gold teeth; “Glock

Nine” was the nickname for Xavier Levatte, who had a laundry bag

in his cell with “Glock Nine” written on it; and “Jersey” was

Appellant’s nickname.

An audio-recorded interview conducted by the Georgia

Department of Corrections (“GDOC”) of Renfroe, the inmate who

2 Cross-examination revealed that Hood was unable to identify any of the

attackers on the morning after Ricks was killed and that the first time she ever
identified Appellant was months later, when she first met with the State.

5
walked with the attackers toward the showers but stopped and stood

outside his cell, was admitted into evidence and played for the jury.

In the interview, Renfroe identified each of the attackers, including

Appellant. 3

A correctional officer who tracked street gangs in Hancock

State Prison testified regarding gang activity in H-1 and the gang-

affiliation of the inmates who allegedly stabbed Ricks. He explained

that the Bloods gang is divided into East Coast and West Coast

Bloods; that there were multiple different sects of East Coast Bloods

within the prison, including “Sex, Money, Murder,” “G-Shine,” and

“Nine Trey”; that there was a sect of West Coast Bloods within the

prison known as the “Inglewood Family Gangster Blood”; and that

“Sex, Money, Murder” is also referred to as “Rollack.” Ricks,

Appellant, Draughn, and Hayward were Sex, Money, Murder or

Rollack Bloods. Renfroe was an Inglewood Blood, and Levatte was a

Nine Trey Blood. The officer explained that Bloods live by various

rules, including a strict prohibition on homosexuality. The officer

3 At trial, Renfroe stated that he could not remember who stabbed Ricks.

6
also explained that if a Blood gang member violates one of their

rules, a “hit” is placed on him and that person is called a “dub.”

As to the motive behind Ricks’s murder, Renfroe and Tannahill

both pointed to allegations that Ricks engaged in homosexual

activity, which was prohibited by Ricks’s gang. In Renfroe’s

interview with GDOC agents, Renfroe stated that Ricks was

considered a “dub” by his gang because Ricks was believed to be

engaging in homosexual activity and because he had allegedly been

caught engaging in similar activity at his prior prison. The State

also introduced into evidence an e-mail from Tannahill to his

girlfriend in which he reported that Ricks was stabbed for engaging

in homosexual activity.

Renfroe also pointed to Ricks’s gang affiliation when

explaining why he believed Ricks was killed. Renfroe explained that,

generally, if Ricks was going to be punished for breaking the gang’s

rules, it would be by members of his own gang. Renfroe told GDOC

agents that the attack, therefore, must have been a “Rollack call,”

and that there were only four to five members of Sex, Money, Murder

7
in H-1.

Gregory Johnson, Ricks’s roommate at the time of the attack,

testified that they had only been roommates for three days when

Ricks was killed. Johnson explained that Ricks paid Johnson’s

former roommate to switch rooms so that Ricks could room with

Johnson. Johnson also testified that Ricks and Appellant got into a

verbal argument on the same day of the attack.

A crime scene specialist testified that he found a bucket filled

with a foamy solution that smelled like bleach in Renfroe and

Lavette’s cell, cell 115, and that there were inmate uniform pants

soaking in the solution. He also discovered that the white sink had

a red tint to it, which he explained was likely caused by someone

washing blood off himself in the sink. 4

A special agent with GDOC testified that two homemade sharp

objects, known as shanks, were found in a “pipe chase” beside cell

109 a week after the murder. The agent explained that a pipe chase

4 The crime scene specialist testified that the sink was not tested for

blood because the nature of sinks having “multiple things being washed inside
[them]” can lead to a false positive.
8
is an area between two cells where inmates often hide things.

A GBI agent testified that DNA from the handle of one of the

shanks found in the pipe chase near Draughn’s cell (cell 109)

matched Draughn’s DNA and that DNA from the blade of that shank

matched Ricks’s DNA. She also testified that a drop of blood was

found on the pants Hayward wore on the night of the attack.5

The medical examiner who conducted Ricks’s autopsy testified

that she found eleven stab wounds on his back, ribs, liver, and right

kidney. She listed his cause of death as multiple sharp- force

injuries. When shown pictures of the shanks recovered from the pipe

chase, she testified that they could have caused the stab wounds.

2. Appellant argues that the evidence was constitutionally

insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred

by denying Appellant’s motion for new trial under OCGA §§ 5-5-20

and 5-5-21. Appellant conflates his sufficiency and general grounds

claims in the argument section of his brief; the claims are “two

distinct legal arguments” with “distinct legal standards.” Casey v.

5 The evidence did not indicate whose blood was on Hayward’s pants.

9
State, 310 Ga. 421, 425 (2) (851 SE2d 550) (2020). We accordingly

address each separately and hold that both claims fail.

(a) When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter

of constitutional due process, we view the evidence presented at trial

in the light most favorable to the verdicts and consider whether any

rational juror could have found the defendant guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted. See

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560)

(1979); Ward v. State, 316 Ga. 295, 298 (2) (888 SE2d 75) (2023). “In

this review, we do not weigh the evidence on appeal or resolve

conflicts in trial testimony.” Ward, 316 Ga. at 298 (2) (citation and

punctuation omitted).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence

here shows that three eyewitnesses identified Appellant as one of

the inmates who attacked Ricks: Officer Hood, Renfroe, and

Tannahill. Though the quality of the security camera footage is

inadequate by itself to confirm these identifications, it is consistent

with the witnesses’ accounts of the attack. Additionally, Ricks’s

10
roommate, Johnson, testified that Appellant and Ricks, who were

both members of the Sex, Money, Murder sect of the East Coast

Bloods, had a verbal altercation in the hours before Ricks’s murder.

And Renfroe’s statements during his recorded interview, together

with Tannahill’s e-mail to his girlfriend, indicated that Ricks was

murdered by members of his own gang, including Appellant, for

failing to follow the gang’s rules prohibiting homosexuality. In

Renfroe’s interview, he stated that the “hit” on Ricks was made by

Sex, Money, Murder Bloods.

This evidence was sufficient to uphold Appellant’s convictions.

See Bates v. State, 317 Ga. 809, 814-815 (2) (896 SE2d 581) (2023)

(holding that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s

convictions of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery, and

other related offenses where eyewitnesses identified defendant as

the shooter and physical evidence supported their testimony); Ward,

316 Ga. at 298-299 (2) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to

support defendant’s convictions of malice murder and aggravated

assault of an inmate where another inmate testified that

11
defendant’s gang put a “hit” on the inmate victim for a debt and

identified defendant as one of the individuals who attacked the

victim by stabbing him with a shank).

(b) Even when the evidence is legally sufficient to uphold a

conviction, a trial judge may grant a new trial if the verdict of the

jury is “contrary to the principles of justice and equity,” OCGA § 5-

5-20, or if the verdict is “decidedly and strongly against the weight

of the evidence,” OCGA § 5-5-21. See Wilkerson v. State, 307 Ga. 574,

574-575 (837 SE2d 300) (2019). When a defendant properly raises

these grounds for new trial, commonly known as the “general

grounds,” the trial court exercises broad discretion to sit as the

“thirteenth juror” and consider matters typically reserved to the

jury, including conflicts in the evidence, witness credibility, and the

weight of the evidence. King v. State, 316 Ga. 611, 616 (2) (889 SE2d

851) (2023). “The merits of a trial court’s discretion on the general

grounds are not subject to our review – that decision is vested solely

in the trial court.” Lee v. State, __ Ga. __ (897 SE2d 856) (2024)

(citation and punctuation omitted). Where as here, Appellant argues

12
that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial based

on the general grounds, his claim presents us nothing to review. See

Lee, __ Ga. at __. 6

3. Appellant next contends that the State committed reversible

error by making two allegedly improper statements in closing

argument. Appellant failed to preserve either claim for appellate

review, however, so these claims fail.

First, Appellant argues that the State committed reversible

error by telling the jury that it needed to determine the guilt or

6 As noted in Division 2 above, Appellant raised both general grounds

and constitutional sufficiency claims, albeit in a single enumeration of error.
We addressed each claim separately because, as noted, they are “two distinct
legal arguments” that “require the trial court to apply distinct legal standards.”
Casey, 310 Ga. at 425 (2). At times in the past, we have performed a Jackson
sufficiency analysis in evaluating the general grounds. See, e.g., Montgomery
v. State, 315 Ga. 467, 474 (3) (883 SE2d 351) (2023); Bundel v. State, 308 Ga.
317, 318-319 (1) (840 SE2d 349) (2020); Lewis v. State, 296 Ga. 259, 261 (3)
(765 SE2d 911) (2014).
Although many of us continue to “question whether it is proper for this
Court to import Jackson into an appellate review of the general grounds (or to
otherwise rely on Jackson as part of that analysis),” we need not resolve that
issue today because Appellant raised both claims and because, as held in
Division 2 (a), the evidence against Appellant was constitutionally sufficient to
affirm his convictions. King v. State, 317 Ga. 611, 616 n.8 (2) (889 SE2d 851)
(2023). See also Blash v. State, 318 Ga. 325, 334 (2) (b) n.6 (__ SE2d __) (2024);
Priester v. State, 317 Ga. 477, 484 n.13 (3) (893 SE2d 751) (2023); Muse v. State,
316 Ga. 639, 653 n.6 (4) (889 SE2d 885) (2023).
13
innocence of Appellant and his co-indictees: Lavette, Hayward, and

Draughn, whose trial had been severed from Appellant’s. To account

for this procedural history, the trial judge and the parties reached

an agreement at the charge conference on the following jury

instruction: “[t]hough you may consider all the evidence as a whole,

you, the jury, must determine the guilt or innocence of [Appellant]

only, and you are not to consider the three co-defendants contained

in this indictment.” Notwithstanding the State’s assent to the trial

court’s agreed-upon instructions, the prosecutor made the following

statement to the jury in closing argument:

You all are here to make the determination about this
indictment. Let me tell you about your decisions, and
that’s all you have to decide. In Count One, whether
Demarco Michael Draughn, Benny Hayward, Xavier
Connell Levatte, and the Defendant before the Court,
[Appellant] committed malice murder in Count One.

Defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s comment or

request a curative instruction. Following the parties’ closing

arguments, the trial court instructed the jury as previously agreed.

A copy of the indictment with the co-indictees’ names redacted from

14
it was given to the jury to consider during its deliberations.

Second, Appellant argues that the State committed reversible

error because the prosecutor stated in his closing argument that

“there has been no evidence exonerating [Appellant], [and] there has

been no evidence pointing to somebody else as being the real killer.”

Defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s comment or

request a curative instruction.

Because defense counsel failed to object to either of the

prosecutor’s allegedly improper statements in closing arguments at

trial, neither claim is preserved for appellate review. See Moon v.

State, 311 Ga. 421, 426 (4) (858 SE2d 18) (2021) (holding that

appellant’s claim was unpreserved for appellate review because

defense counsel did not object to the alleged error made in closing

and explaining that “we do not review unpreserved challenges to

closing arguments in non-death penalty cases, even for plain error”).

4. Lastly, Appellant argues that his trial counsel was

constitutionally ineffective by failing to object to the two allegedly

improper statements made by the prosecutor described in Division

15
3, above. For the reasons that follow, Appellant’s claim lacks merit.

To obtain relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel, a defendant generally must show both that his counsel’s

performance was constitutionally deficient and that this deficient

performance prejudiced him. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 687 (III) (104 SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984); Monroe v. State,

315 Ga. 767, 781 (6) (884 SE2d 906) (2023). “If the defendant fails to

satisfy either prong of the Strickland test, this Court is not required

to examine the other.” Monroe, 315 Ga. at 781 (6).

(a) Assuming without deciding that defense counsel was

deficient in failing to object to the prosecutor’s statement regarding

the jury’s duty to assess the guilt of Appellant’s co-indictees,

Appellant has failed to show a reasonable probability that the result

of his trial would have been different but for the statement. First,

any harm caused by the comment was mitigated by the trial court’s

issuance of the previously agreed-upon jury instruction and its use

of a redacted indictment that did not contain the co-indictees’

names. Second, there was ample evidence of Appellant’s guilt, as

16
three eyewitnesses identified Appellant as one of the attackers.

Considering the trial court’s instruction to the jury, the redacted

indictment, and the strength of the evidence against Appellant, we

cannot say that, had defense counsel objected, there is a reasonable

probability that the result of Appellant’s trial would have been

different. See Walker v. State, 312 Ga. 232, 242 (4) (c) (iv) (862 SE2d

285) (2021) (holding that appellant’s ineffective-assistance claim

fails because even though the prosecutor’s comment “comes

uncomfortably close to – and may well cross over – the boundaries

of permissible argument,” appellant failed to show that there was a

reasonable probability the result of his trial would have been

different “in light of all the evidence presented”); Draughn, 311 Ga.

at 383-384 (2) (b) (holding that appellant failed to show that he was

prejudiced by defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s

allegedly improper statement where the alleged error “was cured by

the trial court’s instructions to the jury” and the evidence was

“plainly sufficient”).

(b) As to the prosecutor’s comment in closing that “there has

17
been no evidence exonerating [Appellant], [and] there has been no

evidence pointing to somebody else as being the real killer,” defense

counsel was not deficient in failing to object to the State’s comment.

“A prosecutor is granted wide latitude in the conduct of closing

argument.” Scott v. State, 290 Ga. 883, 885 (2) (725 SE2d 305)

(2012). “A closing argument is to be judged in the context in which

it is made.” Booth v. State, 301 Ga. 678, 686 (4) (804 SE2d 104)

(2017). Further, “[w]hether to object to a particular part of a

prosecutor’s closing argument is a tactical decision, and counsel’s

decision not to make an objection must be patently unreasonable to

rise to the level of deficient performance.” Cochran v. State, 305 Ga.

827, 833 (2) (c) (828 SE2d 338) (2019) (citation and punctuation

omitted).

Viewed in context, the prosecutor was simply highlighting that

Appellant’s theory of the case—that someone other than Appellant

was the fourth attacker—was illogical based on the evidence. In this

context, the prosecutor’s comment that “there has been no evidence

exonerating [Appellant], [and] there has been no evidence pointing

18
to somebody else as being the real killer” did not improperly shift

the burden to Appellant to prove his innocence, and the statement

was therefore not improper. See Ridley v. State, 315 Ga. 452, 457-

458 (4) (a) (883 SE2d 357) (2023) (holding that prosecutor’s

statement in closing that defendant had the same power to subpoena

witnesses as the State did not improperly shift the burden of proof

to defendant, but rather was a proper comment on defendant’s

failure to present evidence); Kimbro v. State, 317 Ga. 442, 452 (7)

(893 SE2d 678) (2023) (holding that there was no error arising from

prosecutor’s statement in closing that “there is no defense raised by

this evidence” and explaining that such comments did not amount

to improper burden shifting); Johnson v. State, 271 Ga. 375, 383 (15)

(a) (519 SE2d 221) (1999) (holding that prosecutor’s “make them

explain” argument in closing was not an improper shifting of the

burden of proof). Because the statement was not improper, defense

counsel was not deficient for failing to object to the prosecutor’s

statement. See Gatson v. State, 307 Ga. 634, 640 (2) (b) (837 SE2d

808) (2020) (noting that failure to raise a meritless objection is not

19
evidence of ineffective assistance).

Because Appellant has failed to show prejudice resulting from

the prosecutor’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s statement

regarding the jury’s duty to assess the guilt of Appellant’s co-

indictees and because Appellant has failed to show that his trial

counsel was deficient for failing to object to the prosecutor’s

allegedly burden-shifting comments, Appellant’s ineffective-

assistance claims fail.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

318 Ga. 760
FINAL COPY

S24A0117. THOMPSON v. THE STATE.

COLVIN, Justice.

Appellant Diante Thompson appeals his convictions for malice

murder and other crimes related to the stabbing death of Bobby

Jermaine Ricks.1 On appeal, Appellant contends that the evidence

1 Bobby Ricks died on October 11, 2017. On September 25, 2018, a
Hancock County grand jury charged Appellant, Demarco Draughn, Benny
Hayward, and Xavier Levatte with malice murder (Count 1), felony murder
(Count 2), and aggravated assault (Count 3).
On June 20, 2019, Appellant filed a motion to sever Appellant’s trial from
his co-indictees’ trial, which the trial court granted. Appellant’s co-indictees
were convicted of malice murder and other crimes, and their malice murder
convictions were affirmed by this Court in Draughn v. State, 311 Ga. 378 (858
SE2d 8) (2021). Following a jury trial held from October 28 through October
30, 2019, the jury found Appellant guilty on all charges. On October 30, 2019,
the trial court sentenced Appellant to life in prison without the possibility of
parole for malice murder (Count 1). The felony-murder count (Count 2) was
vacated by operation of law. Though the trial court purported to merge Count
3 into Count 2, Count 3 actually merged into Count 1, because Count 2 had
been vacated. See Favors v. State, 296 Ga. 842, 848 (5) (770 SE2d 855) (2015).
Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial on November 8, 2019, and
amended it through new counsel on February 10, 2023. Following a hearing on
July 12, 2023, the trial court denied Appellant’s amended motion for new trial
on July 14, 2023.
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals on
August 11, 2023, and the case was transferred to this Court on September 1,
2023. This appeal was docketed to this Court’s term beginning in December
2023 and submitted for a decision on the briefs.
presented at trial was constitutionally insufficient to sustain his