BLACKWELL, Justice.
Larry Michael Johnson, Nashville, for appellant.
Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Paula Khristian Smith, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard Lowery Perryman III, Dist. Atty., Robert Alan Rogers, Jess C. Hornsby, Asst. Dist. Attys., Samuel S. Olens, Atty. Gen., Katherine L. Iannuzzi, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Opinion
BLACKWELL, Justice.James William Hundley, Jr., was tried by a Cook County jury and convicted of murder and unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, both in connection with the fatal shooting of Ida Golson. Hundley appeals, contending that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Upon our review of the record and briefs, we see no error, and we affirm.Hundley does not dispute that the evidence is sufficient to sustain his convictions, but we nevertheless have independently reviewed the record, with an eye toward the legal sufficiency of the evidence. We conclude that the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Hundley was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319(III)(B), 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
Golson was killed on October 23, 2008. Hundley was indicted on January 12, 2009 and charged with malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. His trial commenced on August 17, 2010, and the jury returned its verdict the next day, finding him not guilty of malice murder and guilty on all other counts. Hundley was sentenced to imprisonment for life for felony murder in the commission of aggravated assault and a consecutive term of imprisonment for five years for unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The separate aggravated assault count merged with the felony murder. Hundley timely filed a motion for new trial on August 30, 2010, and, following a hearing, the trial court denied that motion on October 15, 2013. Hundley timely filed a notice of appeal on November 14, 2013, and the case was docketed in this Court for the April 2014 term and submitted for decision on the briefs.
--------
2. We turn now to the contention that Hundley's trial lawyer was ineffective because he failed to present a clear theory of the defense during the course of the trial and failed to object to evidence of similar transactions that were not sufficiently similar. Hundley's motion for new trial, however, stated only that he “received ineffective assistance of trial counsel,” with no additional detail or argument, and the motion was never amended. At the hearing on the motion, neither Hundley nor his trial lawyer testified about the current claims, only about other areas of allegedly deficient performance, and Hundley's appellate lawyer presented no argument about the theory of the defense or the similar transaction evidence. In its order denying the motion for new trial, the trial court unsurprisingly said nothing about the claims now raised on appeal. Because Hundley did not raise these claims in his motion for new trial, in any amendment of the motion, or at the hearing—and because he did not obtain a ruling on these claims from the trial court—he did not preserve the claims for review on appeal. See Jones v. State, 294 Ga. 501, 503(2), 755 S.E.2d 131 (2014) ; Cowart v. State, 294 Ga. 333, 337–338(3), 751 S.E.2d 399 (2013).
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.