Perryman-Henderson v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Anthony Perryman-Henderson’s convictions and sentence for malice murder and related offenses arising from the shooting death of Tanaya Dunlap. The court rejected his ineffective-assistance claim concerning counsel’s cross-examination of the medical examiner and concluded that, even assuming the trial court’s comment on the range-of-fire testimony was erroneous, Perryman-Henderson failed to establish plain error affecting his substantial rights.

Holdings

1. Perryman-Henderson failed to establish ineffective assistance because counsel's cross-examination of the medical examiner elicited testimony favorable to the defense and was not so unreasonable that no competent attorney would have pursued it.
2. Assuming without deciding that the trial court's statement violated OCGA § 17-8-57, Perryman-Henderson failed to show plain error because he did not establish that the passing comment affected his substantial rights or probably affected the outcome of the trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to correct or otherwise challenge the medical examiner's estimate that the fatal shot was fired from two to three feet away.
2. Whether the trial court plainly erred under OCGA § 17-8-57 by commenting on the State's characterization of the medical examiner's range-of-fire testimony.

Disposition

affirmed