Martin v. State

Marquez Deshawn Martin was convicted by a Monroe County jury of felony murder and other crimes after he and three companions robbed several people over the course of one night, including two men, James Wood and Russell Jacobs, who were shot to death in Wood's home. Martin drove the group and helped with the robberies but argued at trial that he did not know his companions planned to rob anyone. On appeal, Martin argued that his trial lawyer should have objected when the judge left out extra language his lawyer had requested for the jury instruction on his good character, language drawn from a note referencing an older case called Hobbs. The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the instruction actually given was the same one it had already approved in a prior case, so there was nothing wrong with leaving out the extra language, and a lawyer cannot be faulted for not objecting to something that was not an error. The court affirmed the convictions but noticed on its own that Martin had wrongly been sentenced on four murder counts for only two deaths, so it sent the case back for correct resentencing.

Trial counsel was not deficient for failing to object to the good character jury instruction because the instruction given matched language the court had already approved as adequate, and a lawyer cannot be ineffective for skipping a meritless objection; however, sentencing Martin on four felony murder counts for only two deaths was error requiring resentencing.

The decision confirms that Georgia's standard jury instruction on a defendant's good character is legally adequate without extra language some defense lawyers request, guiding how future trials handle character evidence. It also reinforces that trial courts must not impose duplicate murder sentences when there are fewer victims than counts.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing

1. To win an ineffective assistance claim under the Strickland test, a defendant must show both that his lawyer's performance was deficient and that this deficiency likely changed the trial's outcome; failing either part defeats the claim.
2. The court compared the jury instruction actually given on Martin's good character to language already approved in a prior case, Williams v. State, and found the two instructions substantially identical and legally adequate on their own.
3. Because the trial court did not err in giving that standard instruction without the extra requested note, there was no valid legal objection for Martin's trial lawyer to raise, and a lawyer cannot be found deficient for failing to make a meritless objection.
4. Reviewing the record on its own, as it does in murder cases, the court separately noticed that Martin had been sentenced on four felony murder counts even though there were only two victims, Wood and Jacobs.
5. Applying prior rulings on multiple felony murder verdicts for a single death, the court held that two of the four verdicts must be treated as legally void, and it is up to the trial court on remand to decide which verdicts to vacate and how that affects other sentences.

• felony murder conviction
• ineffective assistance of counsel
• jury instructions
• good character evidence
• sentencing error