---
title: Gamble v. State
collection: opinions
id: S26A0775
cite_as: Gamble v. State, S26A0775 (Ga. Sep. 22, 2026)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26A0775
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26A0775.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26A0775/text
source_url: https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/s26a0775.pdf
date: 2026-09-22
status: published
corpus_version: opinions-2026-09-24
license: Public record of the Supreme Court of Georgia, via CourtListener and the court's own website; see about.md
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/2026.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26A0769.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26A1003.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md
omitted: opinion extras
omitted_chars: 1802
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26A0775.md?full=1
docket: S26A0775
court: Supreme Court of Georgia
case_type: criminal appeal
case_name_full: Tamieka Gamble v. The State
authoring_justice: Peterson
disposition: Affirmed
vote: All the Justices concur
word_count: 2148
date_filed_source: opinion_text
record_source: gasupreme
legal_areas:
  - criminal law
  - constitutional law
upstream_id: ga-s26a0775
summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5
---

# Gamble v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S26A0775, filed 2026-09-22.

## Opinion

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

No. S26A0775

Tamieka Gamble

v.

The State

On Appeal from the Superior Court of Fulton County

No. 14SC126737

Decided: September 22, 2026

PETERSON, Chief Justice.

Tamieka Gamble appeals her convictions in connection with the death of Edward Jowers. 1 On appeal, Gamble argues

1 Jowers was killed sometime between August 3 and August 9, 2010. In May 2014, a Fulton County grand jury returned an indictment charging Gamble and Mark Ross with malice murder (Count 1), four counts of felony murder (Counts 2–5), criminal attempt to commit armed robbery (Count 8), aggravated assault (Count 9), false imprisonment (Count 10), burglary (Count 11), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 12). Gamble was separately charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count 13) and felony murder predicated on that act (Count 6); Ross was separately charged with possession of a firearm by a first-offender probationer (Count 14) and felony murder predicated on that act (Count 7). Ross pleaded guilty to Count 2 prior to trial and received a life sentence with the possibility of parole contingent upon him testifying truthfully against Gamble if asked by the State, but the record shows that he did not testify at Gamble’s trial. At her trial in August 2015, Gamble was found guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Gamble to serve life in prison without the possibility of parole on Count 1, a consecutive ten-year sentence on Count 8, a concurrent five-year term on Count 10, a concurrent ten-year term on Count 11, a consecutive five-

that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions and to rebut her claim of coercion. Because Gamble has not articulated why the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions, including how the State failed to disprove her affirmative defense, she has failed to carry her burden of establishing that the evidence was insufficient. Therefore, we affirm her convictions.

year term on Count 12, and a concurrent five-year term on Count 13. The remaining counts were either vacated by operation of law or merged for sentencing purposes. In August 2015, Gamble timely filed a motion for new trial. Gamble was appointed new counsel in June 2018. In November 2018, the State asked for a status conference since the trial transcripts had been filed but nothing was being done in the case. At that status conference, new counsel promised to file an amended motion for new trial by May 2019, which he did. The State promptly responded to the motion, but nothing further occurred for some time. In January 2020, Gamble asked for counsel to be removed since he had not taken any action in her case. In September 2020, new and current appellate counsel (Konrad Zeigler) made an appearance as Gamble’s counsel, but the case continued to lay dormant. In October 2022, the State again moved for a status conference based on the inaction. It is not clear if the court held such a conference, but in any case, nothing was done or filed in the case until May 2024, when current appellate counsel filed an amended motion for new trial. Almost a year later, in February 2025, the trial court denied the motion following a hearing. Gamble timely filed a notice of appeal, and her appeal was docketed to this Court’s April 2026 term and submitted for a decision on the briefs. Although Gamble does not raise the issue on appeal, the inordinate post-conviction delay is unacceptable. Although the State, to its credit, attempted several times to move the proceedings forward, the record does not show that any of Gamble’s appellate counsel were diligent in doing so. Regardless, everyone involved, including the trial court, bears some responsibility for the delay. See Owens v. State, 303 Ga. 254, 259 (2018) (“[I]t is the duty of all those involved in the criminal justice system, including trial courts and prosecutors as well as defense counsel and defendants, to ensure that the appropriate post-conviction motions are filed, litigated, and decided without unnecessary delay.”).

1. The evidence presented at Gamble’s trial.

The evidence presented at trial showed the following. Jowers was retired and lived in an apartment complex in Fulton County. On August 3, 2010, Jowers spoke to a neighbor, Kathy Wilson, and told her that he was expecting a visit from a friend named “Porsche,” whom they both knew. Wilson had previously taken Jowers and Porsche to a church to obtain donated clothes. Sometime on August 3, Jowers briefly talked to his longtime girlfriend, Brenda Jackson, on the phone, telling her that he could not talk to her because his “cousin and them” were at his apartment. Jackson testified that Jowers “didn’t sound right” (and explained that he usually received his Social Security check on the third day of the month).

On August 9, police conducted a wellness check at Jowers’s apartment after the property manager contacted the police. Upon arriving, a police officer noticed an odor like “something [was] dead,” and eventually obtained access into the apartment. The apartment was ransacked, and Jowers’s body was found on the bathroom floor. Jowers was face down and mostly naked with his pants around his legs. His head was wrapped in a pillowcase, there was a belt around his neck, and a cable ran from that belt to binding around Jowers’s wrists and feet, such that Jowers was “hogtied.” Jowers’s mouth was stuffed with a washcloth, he had long cuts all along his back, and he had blood around his head.

A medical examiner who performed the autopsy stated that the cuts on Jowers’s back ranged from 3 inches to 14 inches in length, his nose was fractured, and he suffered a blunt-force injury to his lip that would have been consistent with being pistol- whipped. The medical examiner determined that Jowers died of mechanical asphyxiation based on his head being covered in a pillowcase, his mouth stuffed with a washcloth, and cords being tied around his neck.

A GBI crime scene specialist stated that the cables and belt used to bind Jowers were tied “very tightly” and would have caused Jowers extreme pain if Jowers had tried to move. The crime scene specialist also stated that it would have taken “some time” to bind Jowers. Police collected evidence from the apartment, including cigarette butts from an ashtray.

Police talked to Wilson and searched the records of the church where she had taken Jowers and Porsche to obtain clothing. Church records confirmed that “Laporche Gamble” visited the church with Jowers. Police also developed a DNA profile from the collected cigarette butts, ran that profile through a database, and obtained a positive match for Mark Ross. Police wanted to interview “Laporche” before contacting Ross and eventually determined that Gamble was “Laporche.”

Police located Gamble at a motel and interviewed her there. In her initial interview, Gamble denied knowing Jowers and denied ever being at his apartment. When police said they were investigating his murder, Gamble blurted out, “Edward is dead?” Gamble was shown a photographic lineup containing Ross’s photograph, but she said she did not recognize anyone.

Two weeks later, police interviewed Gamble again at a police station. Police advised Gamble of her Miranda 2 rights, and, contrary to her initial statements, she admitted that she knew Jowers and had been to his apartment. In the interview, which was recorded and played for the jury, Gamble offered differing accounts of her interactions with Jowers.

Gamble first said that in early August, she and Jowers got

2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

into an argument and began fighting when Jowers would not pay her for sexual activities she had engaged in with Jowers. During this fight, Ross and “his cousin” entered the apartment to assist her, and at some point Gamble “hit” Jowers with a knife. Gamble said that she and Ross left the apartment, and Jowers told her to return for her money on the “3rd or 4th. ” Gamble said she never went back to Jowers’s apartment.

After being shown the same photographic lineup she was provided several weeks prior, Gamble identified Ross in the lineup and said that he was the person who was with her inside Jowers’s apartment. Gamble said that Ross threatened to kill her if she told the police about what happened with Jowers. Police asked Gamble why Ross would kill her if what she reported was “all that happened,” and asked her to tell the “whole truth.”

At that point, Gamble started crying and changed her story. Gamble said that she agreed to leave a door open for Ross in order to “surprise” Jowers, and that once inside the apartment, Ross and another male 3 started beating Jowers, demanded his money, took Jowers’s gun, and beat him “even worse.” Ross told Gamble to bind Jowers, hit her when she screamed, told her to “not say s**t,” and threatened to kill her if she did. Ross burned Jowers with a cigarette, put a plastic bag over Jowers’s head, and took him into the bathroom. Gamble said that Ross and the other guy were “cutting [Jowers] up” while she searched the apartment for money, and Ross also made her cut Jowers on the arm. Gamble said that she left when Ross got violent with her and that Jowers was still alive when she left.

3 Gamble’s recorded interview is sometimes difficult to follow, so it is not clear who else may have been involved. Gamble initially mentioned Ross’s cousin, “D,” as being involved, but later retracted that. Gamble also mentioned a “little junky dude” as being involved.

At trial, the State also presented evidence that Gamble participated in a similar attack on an older man several years before Jowers’s murder. That evidence showed that in July 2006, police investigated a report from a 66-year-old male who claimed that he had been tied up with a cord and robbed of a cell phone, cash, and debit card. The victim, who was cut behind his ear during the incident, said that he gave the perpetrator his PIN number for his debit card when the perpetrator had a knife to the victim’s neck. Police were able to determine that the card was used at an ATM and recovered photographs from the machine showing Gamble using the victim’s card. When Gamble was interviewed by police regarding that incident, she claimed that she was a “victim” in the offense, but she was ultimately convicted of robbery. The evidence was sufficient to support Gamble’s convictions and to refute her claim of coercion.

In two related enumerations of error, Gamble challenges the evidence presented in the case as insufficient to support her convictions, stating specifically that she raised the affirmative defense of coercion and that the State failed to disprove her defense. “On appeal, it is the defendant’s burden to show that the trial evidence was insufficient as a matter of constitutional due process to support his convictions.” Charles v. State, 315 Ga. 651, 653 (2023). Gamble has not carried her burden here.

In her first enumeration of error generally challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Gamble merely asks the Court to “review the trial court’s determination that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain her convictions.” In her second enumeration of error, she cites her police interview as raising an affirmative defense of coercion, and states only that she “hereby challenges the sufficiency of the State’s disproof of coercion.” Other than citing one case for the general proposition that the Due Process Clause dictates our sufficiency review and one case about how affirmative defenses operate generally, she cites no specific case in support of these enumerations and makes no specific argument supporting her claims of error.

Indeed, aside from these generalized assertions, Gamble “has not articulated why [she] contends that the trial evidence was insufficient to support [her] convictions, much less formulated an argument showing that the trial evidence failed to prove an essential element of any crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.” Charles, 315 Ga. at 654. This is insufficient to carry her burden. See id. at 654–55 (holding that the defendant failed to carry his burden on appeal where the defendant cited Jackson and asked this Court to reverse his convictions but did not articulate reasons or formulate an argument as to why the trial evidence was insufficient). Accordingly, her claims fail.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

## Summaries written by Georgia Commons

The following was written by claude-sonnet-5 from the opinion above and is not part of the court's opinion. Quote the opinion, not the summary.

The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld Tamieka Gamble's murder conviction, ruling she failed to explain why the evidence against her was insufficient or how the State failed to disprove her claim that she acted under coercion.

### Plain-language summary

Tamieka Gamble was convicted in Fulton County of malice murder and other crimes connected to the brutal killing of an elderly man, Edward Jowers, who was bound, tortured, and asphyxiated in his apartment in 2010. Gamble told police in a recorded interview that a man named Mark Ross forced her to participate by threatening her life, and on appeal she argued the evidence could not support her convictions because the State never disproved that she acted under coercion.
The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed her appeal, which came directly from her convictions after a long delay in the post-trial process. The court found that Gamble's brief only made general assertions that the evidence was insufficient and that the State failed to disprove coercion, without pointing to any specific gap in the evidence or explaining how any element of the crimes was unproven. Because she did not meet her burden of making that argument, the court affirmed her convictions.

### Holding, as summarized

A defendant challenging the sufficiency of evidence, including a claim that the State failed to disprove an affirmative defense like coercion, must specifically explain which element of the crime was unproven; general requests to review sufficiency without such argument fail to meet the defendant's burden on appeal.

### Disposition

Affirmed. All the Justices concur.

### Why it matters

The decision reinforces that defendants appealing convictions in Georgia must do more than generally assert the evidence was insufficient; they must specifically identify what element of a crime went unproven or how a defense went undisproved. It also highlights ongoing concerns about long delays in Georgia's post-conviction appeals process.

> The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions (1,802 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S26A0775.md?full=1