Walker v. GeorgiaAnnotate this Case
Zerrick Walker appealed the denial of his motion for new trial following his convictions for the malice murder of Ronaldo Hill and the crime of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In his sole contention of error in this appeal, Walker argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and asserted that counsel was ineffective in changing trial strategy from a claim that someone other than Walker shot Hill, to include an argument that whoever shot Hill was justified in doing so. The Supreme Court found that Walker failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different had counsel pursued only the defense that Walker was not the shooter. Accordingly, the Court affirmed his conviction.