Bradley v. State

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: January 17, 2024

S24A0010. BRADLEY v. THE STATE.

BETHEL, Justice.

Benjamin Bradley was convicted of the malice murder of

Dequavious Harris, aggravated assault of Clarence Lewis and

Quaimaine Harris, aggravated battery of Ricky Davis, and related

crimes.1 On appeal, Bradley argues that the evidence was

The crimes occurred on January 15, 2018. In April 2018, a Fulton
1

County grand jury indicted Bradley for malice murder (Count 1), felony murder
predicated on aggravated assault (Count 2), felony murder predicated on
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count 3), aggravated assault of
Dequavious (Count 4), aggravated assault of Lewis (Count 5), aggravated
assault of Quaimaine (Count 6), aggravated assault of Davis (Count 7),
aggravated battery of Davis (Count 8), possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony (Count 9), and possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon (Count 10). At a November 2019 jury trial, Bradley was found guilty of
all counts. The trial court sentenced Bradley to serve life in prison on Count 1,
ten years consecutive on each of Counts 5 and 6, fifteen years consecutive on
Count 8, and five years consecutive on each of Counts 9 and 10. The remaining
counts were vacated or merged. Bradley filed a timely motion for new trial,
which he amended through new counsel. Following a hearing, the trial court
denied the motion, as amended. Bradley thereafter filed a timely notice of
appeal, and the case was docketed to this Court’s term commencing in
December 2023 and submitted for a decision on the briefs.
insufficient to support his convictions and that trial counsel was

constitutionally ineffective. We disagree and affirm.

1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, the

evidence presented at trial showed as follows. The day before the

crimes occurred, Bradley’s car was stolen from the parking lot of an

Atlanta gas station. Later that day, Bradley’s girlfriend overheard

Bradley, who was on the phone with his friend Ronnie Bradford, say

that “somebody was going to feel his pain because he was angry

because the car was stolen,” as well as “something about bringing a

stick.” Bradley later explained to his girlfriend that a “stick” is a

gun.

The next night, January 15, 2018, Bradley and Bradford were

driven to the gas station by an acquaintance in a white Dodge

Journey. Bradley initially entered the store to ask the cashier if

anyone had mentioned his stolen car. Then, surveillance footage

showed Bradley exit the store, approach the Dodge Journey’s front

passenger window, and speak to Bradford. Bradford handed Bradley

a small black object, and Bradley raised his shirt, tucked the object

2
into his waistband, and lowered his shirt to cover the object. Bradley

reentered the store and approached Davis, Quaimaine, and a man

identified only as “Black.” Davis testified that Bradley was

“clutching” his pants, as if he were “holding a pistol or something,” 2

while Quaimaine indicated that Bradley had his hands in his

pockets. Bradley asked the men if they knew anything about a stolen

car. Though the group denied any knowledge, their interaction with

Bradley quickly became acrimonious, and the cashier told them to

leave.

Surveillance footage showed that, outside the store, Bradley

continued arguing with the group, until Black gave physical

indications that he was prepared to engage in a physical conflict.

Bradley then retreated to the Dodge Journey, which drove out of the

gas station’s parking lot, while the group of men, which had been

joined by Dequavious and Lewis, remained outside in front of the

gas station. Approximately three minutes later, gunshots were fired

2 Davis testified that Bradley was not “clutching” his pants when he first

entered the store and spoke to the cashier.
3
outside the gas station from a location not within the view of the

surveillance cameras. Davis was struck in the arm, and Dequavious

was struck in the head, resulting in his death.

Davis and Lewis testified that, just before the shooting, they

saw Bradley, who was standing by the side of the gas station,

pointing a gun at the group. 3 After the shooting stopped, Lewis

retrieved his own firearm from his vehicle, ran to where Bradley had

been standing, and saw Bradley entering a white Dodge Journey.

Bradley again pointed his gun at Lewis, and Lewis fired his weapon.

Quaimaine also observed a white Dodge Journey driving near the

gas station just after the shooting. Davis and Lewis identified

Bradley as the shooter in a six-photograph array. Quaimaine, who

did not see the shooter, identified Bradley, also in a six-photograph

array, as the person who confronted the group at the gas station. At

trial, the parties stipulated that Bradley is a convicted felon.

On appeal, Bradley asserts that the evidence recounted above

3 Both men testified that the shooter was wearing a blue sweater, and

surveillance footage showed Bradley dressed in a blue sweater.
4
was insufficient as a matter of due process to support his

convictions. In support of this claim, Bradley points to

inconsistencies in the evidence that he says undermined the

reliability of the eyewitness testimony and notes the absence of

physical evidence tying him to the shooting. But “it is axiomatic that

resolving evidentiary conflicts and assessing witness credibility are

within the exclusive province of the jury,” Graves v. State, 298 Ga.

551, 553 (1) (783 SE2d 891) (2016), and, contrary to Bradley’s

contention, “the State was not required to produce any physical

evidence,” Roberts v. State, 305 Ga. 257, 259 (2) (824 SE2d 326)

(2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Plez v. State, 300

Ga. 505, 506 (1) (796 SE2d 704) (2017) (“Although the State is

required to prove its case with competent evidence, there is no

requirement that it prove its case with any particular sort of

evidence.”). Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to

the jury’s verdicts, we readily conclude as a matter of due process

that it was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find

beyond a reasonable doubt that Bradley was guilty of the crimes of

5
which he was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319

(III) (B) (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

Bradley also asserts that the evidence against him was

insufficient under OCGA § 24-14-6 because, he says, the State’s case

was based “solely on circumstantial evidence” that failed to exclude

“every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the

accused.” See OCGA § 24-14-6 (“To warrant a conviction on

circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent

with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable

hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.”). But, contrary to

Bradley’s argument, his convictions were not based solely on

circumstantial evidence. The eyewitness testimony of Davis and

Lewis identifying Bradley as the shooter was direct evidence. See

Gittens v. State, 307 Ga. 841, 842 (1) n.2 (838 SE2d 888) (2020)

(“Eyewitness testimony based on the witness’s firsthand

observations of the crime is direct, not circumstantial, evidence.”).

“And if there is any direct evidence presented by the State, the

circumstantial evidence statute does not apply in a sufficiency

6
analysis.” Maynor v. State, 317 Ga. 492, 49 (2) (b) (893 SE2d 724)

(2023). Accordingly, Bradley’s statutory sufficiency claim fails.

2. In a series of vague, conclusory arguments on appeal,

Bradley asserts that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for

failing to present the testimony of certain unidentified defense

witnesses at trial and for failing to pursue “other theories of defense

or innocence.” To prevail on this claim, Bradley bears the burden of

showing both that trial counsel’s performance was professionally

deficient and that he was prejudiced as a result of that deficient

performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 695 (III)

(B) (104 SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). The failure to demonstrate

either deficient performance or resulting prejudice is fatal to a claim

of ineffective assistance of counsel and obviates the need even to

consider the other. See Neuman v. State, 311 Ga. 83, 97 (5) (856

SE2d 289) (2021).

Here, Bradley has not even attempted to show that he was

prejudiced as a result of trial counsel’s purportedly deficient

performance. Bradley asserts without elaboration that “prejudice

7
should be presumed.” But Bradley ignores that “this Court has

declined to presume prejudice in the context of an ineffective

assistance of counsel claim based on attorney performance[.]” Keller

v. State, 308 Ga. 492, 496 (2) (a) (842 SE2d 22) (2020); see also Reid

v. State, 286 Ga. 484, 488 (3) (c) (690 SE2d 177) (2010). Instead, as

we have oft recognized, “Strickland places a heavy burden on the

defendant to ‘affirmatively prove’ prejudice,” that is, to

“demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability the trial would

have had a different outcome.” Neuman, 311 Ga. at 97 (5). Bradley,

however, has not identified the additional witnesses he contends

counsel should have called to testify at trial or demonstrated what

their testimony would have shown. 4 See Butler v. State, 313 Ga. 675,

684 (4) (b) (872 SE2d 722) (2022). And beyond a passing complaint

that trial counsel “did not advance other theories of defense or

4 Bradley asserts for the first time in his reply brief that trial counsel

could have called Bradley’s girlfriend, Ronnie Bradford, “Black,” or an
unspecified “Atlanta native” to contradict the State’s theory of the case. “[B]ut
an appellant who raises an argument for the first time in a reply brief is not
entitled to have that argument considered.” Williams v. State, 307 Ga. 689, 689
n.2 (838 SE2d 314) (2020).
8
innocence — such as that [ ] Bradley was defending himself and his

property,” Bradley does not articulate how he was prejudiced by

counsel’s failure to pursue these defenses, which find no support in

the evidence presented at trial and would have been inconsistent

with his defense of misidentification. See Gaston v. State, 307 Ga.

634, 637-639 (2) (a) (837 SE2d 808) (2020). Bradley’s complete

failure to make these required affirmative showings dooms his claim

of ineffective assistance.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

9