MCFADDEN, P. J., BRANCH and BETHEL, JJ.
McFadden, Presiding Judge.
jury trial, Cedric Thompson was convicted of three counts of
aggravated battery and one count of possession of a firearm
during the commission of a felony. Thompson challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence, but there was enough evidence to
authorize the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
He complains of the omission of certain language from a jury
instruction that the testimony of a single witness is
sufficient to establish a fact, but that instruction was not
objected to and did not constitute plain error. And he
challenges the effectiveness of his trial counsel, but trial
counsel's performance was not both deficient and
prejudicial. So we affirm.
Sufficiency of the evidence.
contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his
convictions. The contention is without merit.
applicable standard of review directs that
When reviewing a defendant's challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the jury's verdict, and the defendant no
longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. We do not weigh
the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only
determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier
of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kilby v. State, 289 Ga.App. 457 (1) (657 S.E.2d 567)
(2008) (citations omitted).
viewed, the evidence showed that on October 8, 2011, Thompson
was outside at an apartment complex in Atlanta, yelling that
anyone selling drugs in the neighborhood would have to give
him a 10 percent commission. Darrice Smith, who was standing
with a group of men, laughed as Thompson yelled. Thompson
then went into his apartment and returned with a handgun.
Thompson began shooting the gun, hitting Smith in the leg
with a bullet. As Thompson continued firing, his gunshots hit
two other victims - Sandra Howell was shot in the arm as she
ran back to an apartment and 14-year-old T. D. was shot in
the foot as she ran down steps. The evidence was sufficient
to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Thompson guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged offenses of
aggravated battery (OCGA § 16-5-24) and possession of a
firearm during the commission of a felony (OCGA §
16-11-106). See Fulton v. State, 278 Ga. 58, 59 (1)
(597 S.E.2d 396) (2004).
Jury instruction on testimony of a single witness.
asserts that the trial court erred in instructing the jury
that the "[t]estimony of a single witness is sufficient
to establish a fact." He argues that the instruction
should have included the following emphasized language, as
set forth in the suggested pattern jury instructions: the
"testimony of a single witness, if believed, is
sufficient to establish a fact." Georgia Suggested
Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Criminal Cases,
§1.31.90 (emphasis supplied). As Thompson concedes in
his brief, no objection to the instruction was raised at
trial, and therefore we review it for plain error under OCGA
§ 17-8-58 (b).
[T]he test for determining whether there is plain error in
jury instructions under OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) [is] as
follows. First, there must be an error or defect - some sort
of deviation from a legal rule - that has not been
intentionally relinquished or abandoned, i.e., affirmatively
waived, by the appellant. Second, the legal error must be
clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute.
Third, the error must have affected the appellant's
substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means he must
demonstrate that it affected the outcome of the trial court
proceedings. Fourth and finally, if the above three prongs
are satisfied, the appellate court has the discretion to
remedy the error - discretion which ought to be exercised
only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity
or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680, 683 (2) (724
S.E.2d 366) (2012) (citation omitted). "Thus, beyond
showing a clear or obvious error, plain-error analysis
requires the appellant to make an affirmative showing that
the error probably did affect the outcome below."
Gates v. State, 298 Ga. 324, 327 (3) (781 S.E.2d
772) (2016) (citation and punctuation omitted).
case, even if we assume, without deciding, that the jury
instruction was erroneous, Thompson has not shown that such
error probably affected the outcome below. "[A]n
erroneous jury instruction cannot be considered in isolation,
but must be considered in the context of the entire jury
charge on the record as a whole to determine whether there is
a reasonable likelihood that the jury improperly applied the
challenged instruction." Davis v. State, 329
Ga.App. 797, 801 (2) (764 S.E.2d 588) (2014) (citation
omitted). Here, after the trial court gave the single witness
jury charge, it fully charged the jury on the credibility of
witnesses. Amongst other things, the court instructed the
jurors that they must determine the credibility of the