Preservation of Suppression Objections and Strickland Prejudice in Carrillo v. State

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Carrillo v. State, decided May 6, 2025, reaffirms two critical principles in criminal appellate practice: (1) once a trial court rules on a pre‐trial motion to suppress, no “renewal” of objections is needed to preserve the issue for appeal; and (2) under Strickland v. Washington, a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate both deficient performance and a reasonable probability of a different outcome (prejudice). Jose Carlos Carrillo challenged his 2021 convictions for felony murder, aggravated assault, and weapons violations in connection with a 2017 drive-by shooting that killed Shawn Rhinehart and wounded Robert Reeves. His sole appellate contention was that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to inculpatory text messages and by not renewing an objection to a search warrant. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, rejecting both prongs of Carrillo’s Strickland claim and clarifying appellate preservation rules.

Summary of the Judgment

Carrillo was indicted for malice murder (Count 1), two counts of felony murder (Counts 2–3), aggravated assault (Counts 4–5), and weapons possession (Count 6). A jury convicted him of all counts except Count 1. The trial court sentenced him to life plus 20 years. Carrillo moved for a new trial, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued counsel should have objected to certain hearsay text messages and should have renewed objections to the search warrant that produced ballistics and DNA evidence. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief and Carrillo appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding:

Carrillo failed to show prejudice from counsel’s omission to object to incoming hearsay texts: overwhelming independent evidence—ballistic linkage of the weapon to Carrillo, his DNA on the gun, and his own party‐opponent admissions—undermined any reasonable probability of a different verdict.
Counsel’s failure to “renew” the objection to the search warrant did not constitute deficient performance because Georgia law (OCGA § 24-1-103(a)) dispenses with renewal when a definitive ruling has been made; the suppression motion was preserved without further objection.

Accordingly, Carrillo’s conviction and sentences were affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s decision draws on a robust body of Georgia and U.S. Supreme Court authority:

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984): Establishes the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel—performance and prejudice—and defines “reasonable probability.”
Moore v. State, 307 Ga. 290 (2019) and Moore v. State, 315 Ga. 263 (2022): Clarify deference to trial court fact‐finding on ineffective assistance claims and procedural context for recounting evidence when prejudice under Strickland is at issue.
Turner v. State, 308 Ga. 537 (2020): Holds that overwhelming evidence of guilt can defeat a claim of prejudice even if counsel omitted a viable objection.
OCGA § 24-1-103(a): Provides that once a trial court definitively rules on an evidentiary objection, renewal is not required to preserve appellate review.
Marshall v. State, 309 Ga. 698 (2017) and Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (1993): Discuss merger of convictions and the necessity of cross-appeal to correct a sentencing merger error.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis proceeds in two parts:

Hearsay Text Messages and Prejudice
Carrillo argued counsel should have objected to a text from the victim’s mother characterizing Carrillo’s conduct as “dumb s**t.” Even assuming counsel’s omission was deficient, the Court found no prejudice. It catalogued overwhelming independent evidence:
- The Glock 17 9 mm found in Carrillo’s toolbox fired the nine shell casings at the scene, bullets in Reeves’s car and body, and projectiles in Rhinehart’s body (ballistics expert testimony).
- Carrillo’s DNA was found on the gun with statistical certainty of “thirty billion times” more probable than a random match.
- Carrillo’s own text (“I know I f**ked up”) constituted an admission by a party opponent (OCGA § 24-8-801(d)(2)(A)).
Under Strickland and Turner, such weighty evidence negated any reasonable probability of acquittal had the hearsay text been excluded.
Search Warrant Objection and Preservation
Carrillo challenged counsel’s failure to renew the suppression objection when the evidence was admitted at trial. The Court observed that Georgia’s evidence code (OCGA § 24-1-103(a)) eliminates the need for a second objection after a pre-trial motion has been ruled on: once the trial court makes a “definitive ruling,” the issue is preserved. Counsel’s inaction was not objectively unreasonable, and thus failed the first Strickland prong. The Court therefore declined to reach the merits of the probable cause issue.

Impact

The Carrillo decision will guide practitioners and appellate courts in Georgia in two significant ways:

Ineffective Assistance Claims: Confirms that a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different result, and that overwhelming forensic and admission evidence will defeat a claim of prejudice even if counsel omits tactically possible objections.
Preservation of Suppression Issues: Affirms that once a trial court rules on a motion to suppress, counsel need not renew the objection at trial to preserve appellate review. This removes a potential trap for attorneys and streamlines appellate procedures.

Lower courts will rely on Carrillo to resolve similar ineffective-assistance and preservation disputes, and defense counsel will be reminded to focus on contentious evidentiary objections only when necessary to establish prejudice under Strickland.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Strickland’s Two‐Pronged Test: To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must show (1) counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable and (2) but for that deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome. Failing either prong is fatal.
Hearsay vs. Admission: Hearsay is an out‐of‐court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. However, a party’s own statement—like Carrillo’s “I know I f**ked up”—is a non-hearsay admission and is admissible without objection.
Preservation of Objections: Georgia law holds that once a trial court definitively rules on an evidentiary motion (e.g., suppression), counsel need not “renew” the objection at trial. The issue is preserved for appeal without further objection.
Merger Error and Cross-Appeal: When a trial court improperly merges counts (here, Count 6 into vacated Count 3), the State must cross-appeal to correct the error; absent such a cross-appeal, the ruling stands, even if it benefits the defendant.

Conclusion

Carrillo v. State crystallizes two enduring principles of Georgia criminal law. First, in the realm of ineffective assistance claims, the absence of prejudice—particularly in the face of compelling forensic and admission evidence—forecloses relief under Strickland. Second, once a trial court has ruled on a suppression motion, defense counsel’s failure to renew the objection at trial does not forfeit appellate review. By affirming these tenets, the Supreme Court of Georgia provides clarity for criminal practitioners and ensures that appellate focus remains on substantive fairness rather than technical preservation pitfalls.