Williams v. State

Summary

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Williams's malice-murder and firearm convictions because he participated in the attempted armed taking and was criminally responsible for the fatal shooting, but insufficient to support completed armed robbery because the State did not prove a transfer of dominion over the chain or pendant. The court also held that Williams failed to establish an actual conflict of interest adversely affecting his trial counsel's representation merely because the same public defender's office represented a cooperating codefendant. The judgment was therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part.