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: May 6, 2025
S25A0275. CARRILLO v. THE STATE.
PETERSON, Chief Justice.
Jose Carlos Carrillo challenges his 2021 convictions for felony
murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of
Shawn Rhinehart and the non-fatal shooting of Robert Reeves.
Carrillo’s sole enumeration of error is that he was denied the
effective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the admission
of certain text messages and for failing to renew his objection to the
search warrant executed at his home and the evidence discovered
therein. Carrillo has failed to show that any deficiency in failing to
object to the admission of the text messages prejudiced him or that
counsel acted deficiently in failing to renew the objection to the
search warrant and discovered evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.1
1. The evidence at trial showed the following. 2 On October
8, 2017, Rhinehart and Reeves were at a park playing basketball
1 The shooting occurred on October 8, 2017. On May 16, 2018, a Chatham
County grand jury indicted Carrillo and Archie Marion Bryant for malice
murder (Count 1), two counts of felony murder, predicated on the aggravated
assault of Rhinehart and the possession of a firearm by a First-Offender
Probationer (Counts 2-3), and two counts of aggravated assault (Counts 4-5);
Carrillo was separately indicted for possession of a firearm by a First-Offender
Probationer (Count 6). Carrillo was tried separately at a trial from September
14 to 20, 2021, and the jury found him guilty of all counts except Count 1. The
trial court sentenced Carrillo to serve life in prison for Count 2 and a
consecutive term of twenty years for Count 5. The trial court purported to
merge Count 3, which was predicated on Count 6, into Count 2. On September
29, 2021, Carrillo filed a motion for new trial, which he amended with new
counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order denying
the motion on May 18, 2023. Carrillo filed a timely notice of appeal, and the
case was docketed to the term of this Court beginning in December 2024 and
submitted for a decision on the briefs. According to Carrillo’s trial counsel at
the hearing for the motion for new trial, Bryant negotiated a plea deal to a
reduced charge prior to his trial.
Under Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 371-374 (4), (5) (434 SE2d 479)
(1993), the State correctly argues that because the trial court failed to vacate
Count 3, it erroneously merged Count 6 into the vacated Count 3, and as a
result, the trial court failed to sentence Carrillo for Count 6, a crime for which he was found guilty and properly should have been convicted. But this merger
error benefits Carrillo, and the State failed to raise this merger issue by crossappeal and this case does not present an exceptional circumstance, so we
decline to exercise our discretion to correct the erroneous merger of Count 6.
See Marshall v. State, 309 Ga. 698, 700-701 (2) (808 SE2d 696) (2017).
2 Because this case involves questions of prejudice under Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (104 SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984), we set out the
evidence in detail, rather than recounting it in the light most favorable to the
jury’s verdicts. See Moore v. State, 315 Ga. 263, 264 n.2 (1) (882 SE2d 227)
(2022).
2
when Carrillo arrived and, without articulating a reason why, said
that he wanted to fight Rhinehart and pointed at Rhinehart “[a]s if
[Carrillo] had a gun” in his hand. Rhinehart appeared “shocked[]
[and] scared” when he saw Carrillo. Rhinehart and Reeves left the
park immediately in Reeves’s silver sedan; Rhinehart was in the
back seat of the car while Reeves drove. Around the time Rhinehart
and Reeves left the park, video surveillance footage from a nearby
gas station showed an orange sports car pulling alongside a car that
investigators believed to be Reeves’s silver sedan at an intersection.
As Reeves drove, he saw the orange sports car in his rearview
mirror, speeding closely behind him. Rhinehart urged Reeves to
speed up, and when Reeves did, shots were fired. Reeves could not
see anyone in the orange sports car, could not say how many people
were in the car, and could not see who was shooting. Reeves testified,
however, that he and Rhinehart had been shot and that he heard
seven or more gunshots fired from behind his car. Reeves also
asserted that neither he nor Rhinehart possessed a weapon and that
neither of them fired shots out of the window while driving away
3
from the orange sports car.
One witness testified that he was at home around 6:30 p.m. on
October 8 when he heard between seven and nine gunshots. His
back was to the window when he heard the shots, so he did not see
who was shooting, but he stated that when he turned around, he saw
two cars speeding by his home. The car in front was a “white,
compact car,” and an orange sports car was following behind it. The
witness further testified that the gunshots stopped when the cars
reached his property line and that he believed only one gun was
being fired.
After being shot, Reeves drove to his grandmother’s house
nearby. When he got there, he immediately got out of the car,
believing Rhinehart had also gotten out at the same time, and told
his grandmother that he had been shot. His grandmother took him
to the hospital in her car.
After receiving 911 calls from Reeves’s mother, police arrived
at his grandmother’s house. Police found Rhinehart’s dead body in
the backseat of Reeves’s car; Reeves’s car was riddled with bullet
4
holes. Rhinehart’s death was ruled a homicide caused by gunshot
wounds to the chest and back of his right arm. One bullet was
recovered from Rhinehart’s right arm, and another bullet was
removed from Reeves’s lower back at the hospital and three bullets
from his car. At the crime scene, investigators found nine 9mm
Aguila brand shell casings that appeared to have been recently
fired.3
Based on statements from Reeves and others, investigators
identified Carrillo as a person of interest. During an interview with
investigators, Carrillo denied, among other things, being at the park
the day the shooting took place, being involved in the shooting, being
around any of his friends the weekend of the shooting, being in
possession of a firearm, and knowing anyone who drove an orange
sports car. 4 Carrillo also stated during the interview that “[he] had
3 There was an additional .45-caliber shell casing found in the area. The
shell casing appeared to be rusted, suggesting to investigators that the shell
casing had been in the area prior to the shooting involving Reeves and
Rhinehart taking place.
4 After investigators showed Carrillo a photo of him standing next to an
5
a feelin[g] . . . that [investigators] were [going to] come get [him].”
Carrillo appeared to be referencing that in 2015, Javon Wilson,
whom Carrillo described as his “little brother,” was killed.
Investigators initially suspected that Rhinehart might have been
involved in Wilson’s death, but eventually cleared him as a person
of interest.5 Accordingly, Carrillo explained that “[b]ecause it’s just
you know, the boy got killed . . . and I mean, the only people they
gonna come after is . . . any close friends of Javon, Javon family . . .
‘cause they think . . . we lash out to do it . . . .” There was also
evidence of several Facebook posts made by Carrillo memorializing
Wilson, stating, among other things, “d**n I miss you lil bruh . . . .
You always h[e]ld it down when I was gone, so that’s what I’m gonna
do” and “it been two years since a p**sy boy took my brother from
orange sports car from Carrillo’s public Facebook account, Carrillo contended
that he had never been in that car and did not know who it belonged to. Based
on a partial tag seen in the Facebook photo, investigators determined that the
car belonged to Carrillo’s co-indictee, Archie Bryant, who was also in the
Facebook photo, standing next to Carrillo.
5 Investigators handling Wilson’s case initially believed that Rhinehart
was involved in Wilson’s killing, as Rhinehart was the victim of an armed
robbery in which his phone was taken, and Wilson’s death was believed to have
occurred in an effort to recover that phone.
6
me.”
While Carrillo was being interviewed, his home was searched
pursuant to a search warrant. At his home, investigators discovered
a Glock 17 9mm handgun in a tool bag with the name “Jose C”
written on it and one 9mm Aguila brand round. Investigators also
conducted a search of Reeves’s grandmother’s home pursuant to a
search warrant. During that search they found a 9mm pistol, seven
9mm rounds, 26 5.6mm rounds, six .38 special rounds, and 20
Winchester 30/30 rounds. No firearm was found matching the
Winchester rounds, and investigators did not find any Aguila brand
rounds. Reeves claimed that none of the firearms and ammunition
found at his grandmother’s home belonged to him. Carrillo was
eventually arrested and tried for malice murder, two counts of felony
murder (predicated on the aggravated assault of Rhinehart and the
possession of a firearm by a First-Offender Probationer), two counts
of aggravated assault for the non-fatal wounding of Reeves, and
possession of a firearm by a First-Offender Probationer.
7
At trial, a ballistics expert6 testified that she concluded within
a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the Glock 17 9mm
handgun found in Carrillo’s home fired the nine Aguila brand shell
casings recovered from the scene of Rhinehart’s murder, the bullets
found in Reeves’s car, the bullet recovered from Reeves’s back, and
the bullets found in Rhinehart’s body. Moreover, a DNA analyst
from the GBI testified that the DNA found on the Glock 17 9mm
handgun matched Carrillo’s DNA and the match to Carrillo was
“approximately thirty billion times more probable than a
coincidental match to an unrelated person in the population.” 7
There was also evidence admitted at trial showing text
messages on the day of the shooting between Carrillo and his child’s
6 The ballistics expert who testified was asked to resign from the GBI
prior to trial because she had a high peer review rejection rate, involving “typos in her work.” She confirmed that her resignation was not due to the quality of
her work or the scientific certainty of her conclusions, but only the quality of
the actual reports she produced. Notwithstanding this, the State also called a
former GBI ballistics expert who, after completing similar tests, reached the
same conclusions.
7 The firearm had a mixture of detectable DNA from at least two
individuals. The DNA analyst testified that mixed DNA was common and that
results obtained from examinations of subjects involving mixed DNA for later
comparison were not less reliable than if there were only a single source of
detected DNA.
8
mother, Danequa Loadholt, who also went by “Neka.” At 6:50 p.m.
on the day of the shooting, Carrillo’s phone messaged Loadholt’s
phone asking, “Can I spend da night at ur house[?]”Loadholt’s phone
responded, “[W]hat’s wrong,” and “[W]hat u did Jose[?]”Carrillo’s
phone responded, “Neka just chill I just want to spend da time with
u I miss u.” Later that night at 10:25 p.m., Loadholt’s phone sent the
following message to Carrillo’s phone:
I guess you wasn’t gonna text me idk, whatever. But
you just keep doing dumb s**t . . . you ain’t even had
to do all that then gone lie to me and say “you going
to hoop” . . . . I BEEEEEEEEN told you about doing
dumb s**t with ur friends, . . . I’m frustrated cuz u
never gets it[.]
Carrillo, from his sister’s phone,8 responded to Loadholt’s phone:
I really needed u tonight man u is always there for
me I am just scared cuz I really don’t want to lose u
or [my child] I know I f**ked up neka I know bt how
could I do anything neka dats my lil brudda man u
know he was like my blood man I couldn’t let it ride
I’m sorry I won’t do anything else man bt I really did
8 Loadholt’s phone consistently referred to the person the messages were
being sent to as “Jose,” and a message sent from Carrillo’s sister’s phone to
Loadholt’s phone to “call my phone really quick I’m finna give [Carrillo’s sister] her phone” suggested that Carrillo was the person using his sister’s phone to
send messages to Loadholt’s phone.
9
need u tonight bt I’m sorry[.]
2. Carrillo raises two claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel. We conclude that, as to the first claim, Carrillo has not
shown prejudice and, as to the second claim, Carrillo has not shown
that counsel performed in a constitutionally deficient manner.
To prove his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Carrillo
must prove both that his attorney’s performance was professionally
deficient and that the deficiency resulted in prejudice to Carrillo’s
case. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (III) (104 SCt
2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). If Carrillo fails to meet the burden of
proving either prong of the Strickland test, “we need not examine
the other prong.” Moore v. State, 307 Ga. 290, 298 (6) (835 SE2d 610)
(2019) (citation omitted).
To establish deficient performance, Carrillo must show that his
attorney’s acts or omissions were objectively unreasonable,
considering all the circumstances at the time and in the light of
prevailing professional norms. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-690.
To establish the required prejudice, Carrillo must show that but for
10
his attorney’s unprofessional errors, there is a “reasonable
probability” that the result of the proceeding would have been
different. Id. at 694. “A reasonable probability is a probability
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. “In reviewing
a ruling on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we defer to
the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous,
but we apply the law to the facts de novo.” Payne v. State, 314 Ga.
322, 329 (3) (877 SE2d 202) (2022) (citation omitted).
(a) Carrillo argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective
assistance by failing to object to the text messages Loadholt’s phone
sent to Carrillo’s phone. Specifically, Carrillo contends that the
message sent from Loadholt’s phone at 10:25 p.m. on the night of the
shooting, regarding her frustration with Carrillo for “doing dumb
s**t with [Carrillo’s] friends . . . [,]” was admitted in support of
Carrillo’s guilt and that trial counsel should have objected on the
ground that the text messages were inadmissible hearsay.
Without deciding whether Carrillo’s trial counsel was deficient
for failing to object on hearsay grounds to incoming text messages
11
from Loadholt’s phone, Carrillo cannot show prejudice on this claim
because there was other overwhelming evidence supporting
Carrillo’s guilt. Particularly, the gun used in Rhinehart’s shooting
was found in Carrillo’s home in a tool bag that was labeled “Jose C.”
Moreover, DNA found on that gun was “approximately thirty billion
times more probable [to be a match to Carrillo] than a coincidental
match to an unrelated person in the population.” There was also
evidence showing that the shell casings found at the scene and
bullets found in Reeves’s car, Reeves’s back, and Rhinehart’s body
were fired from the weapon found in Carrillo’s tool bag. Finally,
Carrillo’s message to Loadholt’s phone on the day of the shooting,
which was admissible as an admission by a party opponent, see
OCGA § 24-8-801 (d) (2) (A) (“Admissions shall not be excluded by
the hearsay rule. An admission is a statement offered against a
party which is: . . . [t]he party’s own statement . . . .”), implies his
guilt. That message stated, in part, “I know I f**ked up.” And
Carillo’s other remark to Loadholt’s phone that “dats my lil brudda
man u know he was like my blood man I couldn’t let it ride”
12
suggested that Carrillo understood the significance of shooting
Rhinehart and Reeves but believed it was necessary to avenge
Wilson’s death. See Turner v. State, 308 Ga. 537, 540-541 (2) (a) (842
SE2d 40) (2020) (concluding that the defendant could not show the
required prejudice for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim
because of other properly admitted evidence of his guilt). This claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel therefore fails.
(b) Carrillo next argues that his trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance by failing to renew his objections to the search
warrant permitting investigators to search Carrillo’s home and the
evidence obtained from that search. Prior to trial, Carrillo’s trial
counsel filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a
search warrant of Carrillo’s home and argued that the search
warrant was not supported by probable cause. The trial court denied
Carrillo’s motion to suppress. When the challenged evidence was
admitted at trial, trial counsel did not object.
On appeal, Carrillo does not contend that the search warrant
was not supported by probable cause or that the trial court erred in
13
denying his motion to suppress. Instead, he argues only that trial
counsel waived these issues for appellate review by failing to renew
his objection to the evidence obtained under the warrant. But trial
counsel did not need to renew his objection in order to preserve the
issues. “Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record
admitting or excluding any evidence, either at or before trial, a party
need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve such claim
of error for appeal.” OCGA § 24-1-103 (a). Therefore, trial counsel’s
failure to make a renewed objection did not constitute deficient
performance, and the issues are preserved. See Rashad v. State, 318
Ga. 199, 209 (3) (a) (897 SE2d 760) (2024). We do not reach the
merits of these issues, however, because Carillo does not
independently raise them on appeal. Thus, Carrillo’s ineffective
assistance claim fails.
Judgment affirmed. Warren, PJ, and Bethel, Ellington,
McMillian, LaGrua, Colvin, and Pinson, JJ, concur.
14