GAMBLE v. STATE (2026)

Tamieka Gamble appeals her convictions in connection with the death of Edward Jowers.¹ On appeal, Gamble argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions and to rebut her claim of coercion. Because Gamble has not articulated why the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions, including how the State failed to disprove her affirmative defense, she has failed to carry her burden of establishing that the evidence was insufficient. Therefore, we affirm her convictions.

1. The evidence presented at Gamble's trial.

The evidence presented at trial showed the following. Jowers was retired and lived in an apartment complex in Fulton County. On August 3, 2010, Jowers spoke to a neighbor, Kathy Wilson, and told her that he was expecting a visit from a friend named “Porsche,” whom they both knew. Wilson had previously taken Jowers and Porsche to a church to obtain donated clothes. Sometime on August 3, Jowers briefly talked to his longtime girlfriend, Brenda Jackson, on the phone, telling her that he could not talk to her because his “cousin and them” were at his apartment. Jackson testified that Jowers “didn't sound right” (and explained that he usually received his Social Security check on the third day of the month).

On August 9, police conducted a wellness check at Jowers's apartment after the property manager contacted the police. Upon arriving, a police officer noticed an odor like “something [was] dead,” and eventually obtained access into the apartment. The apartment was ransacked, and Jowers's body was found on the bathroom floor. Jowers was face down and mostly naked with his pants around his legs. His head was wrapped in a pillowcase, there was a belt around his neck, and a cable ran from that belt to binding around Jowers's wrists and feet, such that Jowers was “hogtied.” Jowers's mouth was stuffed with a washcloth, he had long cuts all along his back, and he had blood around his head.

A medical examiner who performed the autopsy stated that the cuts on Jowers's back ranged from 3 inches to 14 inches in length, his nose was fractured, and he suffered a blunt-force injury to his lip that would have been consistent with being pistol-whipped. The medical examiner determined that Jowers died of mechanical asphyxiation based on his head being covered in a pillowcase, his mouth stuffed with a washcloth, and cords being tied around his neck.

A GBI crime scene specialist stated that the cables and belt used to bind Jowers were tied “very tightly” and would have caused Jowers extreme pain if Jowers had tried to move. The crime scene specialist also stated that it would have taken “some time” to bind Jowers. Police collected evidence from the apartment, including cigarette butts from an ashtray.

Police talked to Wilson and searched the records of the church where she had taken Jowers and Porsche to obtain clothing. Church records confirmed that “Laporche Gamble” visited the church with Jowers. Police also developed a DNA profile from the collected cigarette butts, ran that profile through a database, and obtained a positive match for Mark Ross. Police wanted to interview “Laporche” before contacting Ross and eventually determined that Gamble was “Laporche.”

Police located Gamble at a motel and interviewed her there. In her initial interview, Gamble denied knowing Jowers and denied ever being at his apartment. When police said they were investigating his murder, Gamble blurted out, “Edward is dead?” Gamble was shown a photographic lineup containing Ross's photograph, but she said she did not recognize anyone.

Two weeks later, police interviewed Gamble again at a police station. Police advised Gamble of her Miranda 2 rights, and, contrary to her initial statements, she admitted that she knew Jowers and had been to his apartment. In the interview, which was recorded and played for the jury, Gamble offered differing accounts of her interactions with Jowers.

Gamble first said that in early August, she and Jowers got into an argument and began fighting when Jowers would not pay her for sexual activities she had engaged in with Jowers. During this fight, Ross and “his cousin” entered the apartment to assist her, and at some point Gamble “hit” Jowers with a knife. Gamble said that she and Ross left the apartment, and Jowers told her to return for her money on the “3rd or 4th.” Gamble said she never went back to Jowers's apartment.

After being shown the same photographic lineup she was provided several weeks prior, Gamble identified Ross in the lineup and said that he was the person who was with her inside Jowers's apartment. Gamble said that Ross threatened to kill her if she told the police about what happened with Jowers. Police asked Gamble why Ross would kill her if what she reported was “all that happened,” and asked her to tell the “whole truth.”

At that point, Gamble started crying and changed her story. Gamble said that she agreed to leave a door open for Ross in order to “surprise” Jowers, and that once inside the apartment, Ross and another male ³ started beating Jowers, demanded his money, took Jowers's gun, and beat him “even worse.” Ross told Gamble to bind Jowers, hit her when she screamed, told her to “not say s**t,” and threatened to kill her if she did. Ross burned Jowers with a cigarette, put a plastic bag over Jowers's head, and took him into the bathroom. Gamble said that Ross and the other guy were “cutting [Jowers] up” while she searched the apartment for money, and Ross also made her cut Jowers on the arm. Gamble said that she left when Ross got violent with her and that Jowers was still alive when she left.

At trial, the State also presented evidence that Gamble participated in a similar attack on an older man several years before Jowers's murder. That evidence showed that in July 2006, police investigated a report from a 66-year-old male who claimed that he had been tied up with a cord and robbed of a cell phone, cash, and debit card. The victim, who was cut behind his ear during the incident, said that he gave the perpetrator his PIN number for his debit card when the perpetrator had a knife to the victim's neck. Police were able to determine that the card was used at an ATM and recovered photographs from the machine showing Gamble using the victim's card. When Gamble was interviewed by police regarding that incident, she claimed that she was a “victim” in the offense, but she was ultimately convicted of robbery. The evidence was sufficient to support Gamble's convictions and to refute her claim of coercion.

In two related enumerations of error, Gamble challenges the evidence presented in the case as insufficient to support her convictions, stating specifically that she raised the affirmative defense of coercion and that the State failed to disprove her defense.

“On appeal, it is the defendant's burden to show that the trial evidence was insufficient as a matter of constitutional due process to support his convictions.” Charles v. State, 315 Ga. 651, 653, 884 S.E.2d 363 (2023). Gamble has not carried her burden here.

In her first enumeration of error generally challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Gamble merely asks the Court to “review the trial court's determination that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain her convictions.” In her second enumeration of error, she cites her police interview as raising an affirmative defense of coercion, and states only that she “hereby challenges the sufficiency of the State's disproof of coercion.” Other than citing one case for the general proposition that the Due Process Clause dictates our sufficiency review and one case about how affirmative defenses operate generally, she cites no specific case in support of these enumerations and makes no specific argument supporting her claims of error.

Indeed, aside from these generalized assertions, Gamble “has not articulated why [she] contends that the trial evidence was insufficient to support [her] convictions, much less formulated an argument showing that the trial evidence failed to prove an essential element of any crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.” Charles, 315 Ga. at 654, 884 S.E.2d 363. This is insufficient to carry her burden. See id. at 654–55, 884 S.E.2d 363 (holding that the defendant failed to carry his burden on appeal where the defendant cited Jackson and asked this Court to reverse his convictions but did not articulate reasons or formulate an argument as to why the trial evidence was insufficient). Accordingly, her claims fail.

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Jowers was killed sometime between August 3 and August 9, 2010. In May 2014, a Fulton County grand jury returned an indictment charging Gamble and Mark Ross with malice murder (Count 1), four counts of felony murder (Counts 2–5), criminal attempt to commit armed robbery (Count 8), aggravated assault (Count 9), false imprisonment (Count 10), burglary (Count 11), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 12). Gamble was separately charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count 13) and felony murder predicated on that act (Count 6); Ross was separately charged with possession of a firearm by a first-offender probationer (Count 14) and felony murder predicated on that act (Count 7). Ross pleaded guilty to Count 2 prior to trial and received a life sentence with the possibility of parole contingent upon him testifying truthfully against Gamble if asked by the State, but the record shows that he did not testify at Gamble's trial. At her trial in August 2015, Gamble was found guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Gamble to serve life in prison without the possibility of parole on Count 1, a consecutive ten-year sentence on Count 8, a concurrent five-year term on Count 10, a concurrent ten-year term on Count 11, a consecutive five-year term on Count 12, and a concurrent five-year term on Count 13. The remaining counts were either vacated by operation of law or merged for sentencing purposes. In August 2015, Gamble timely filed a motion for new trial. Gamble was appointed new counsel in June 2018. In November 2018, the State asked for a status conference since the trial transcripts had been filed but nothing was being done in the case. At that status conference, new counsel promised to file an amended motion for new trial by May 2019, which he did. The State promptly responded to the motion, but nothing further occurred for some time. In January 2020, Gamble asked for counsel to be removed since he had not taken any action in her case. In September 2020, new and current appellate counsel (Konrad Zeigler) made an appearance as Gamble's counsel, but the case continued to lay dormant. In October 2022, the State again moved for a status conference based on the inaction. It is not clear if the court held such a conference, but in any case, nothing was done or filed in the case until May 2024, when current appellate counsel filed an amended motion for new trial. Almost a year later, in February 2025, the trial court denied the motion following a hearing. Gamble timely filed a notice of appeal, and her appeal was docketed to this Court's April 2026 term and submitted for a decision on the briefs.Although Gamble does not raise the issue on appeal, the inordinate post-conviction delay is unacceptable. Although the State, to its credit, attempted several times to move the proceedings forward, the record does not show that any of Gamble's appellate counsel were diligent in doing so. Regardless, everyone involved, including the trial court, bears some responsibility for the delay. See Owens v. State, 303 Ga. 254, 259, 811 S.E.2d 420 (2018) (“[I]t is the duty of all those involved in the criminal justice system, including trial courts and prosecutors as well as defense counsel and defendants, to ensure that the appropriate post-conviction motions are filed, litigated, and decided without unnecessary delay.”).

2.   Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

3.   Gamble's recorded interview is sometimes difficult to follow, so it is not clear who else may have been involved. Gamble initially mentioned Ross's cousin, “D,” as being involved, but later retracted that. Gamble also mentioned a “little junky dude” as being involved.

Peterson, Chief Justice.

All the Justices concur.