Chism v. the State
338 Ga. App. 463
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2005 Deandre Chism pled guilty to armed robbery, kidnapping, and other offenses and received life plus ten years.
- Chism alleges he asked his court-appointed lawyer three days after sentencing (Nov. 2005) to file a motion to withdraw the plea or an appeal; counsel’s letter corroborates no action was taken.
- From 2006–2013 Chism repeatedly sought copies of his plea transcript and records; the clerk and court directed him to the court reporter or required payment; one appeal was dismissed for nonpayment of costs.
- In Feb. 2015 Chism filed a pro se motion for an out-of-time appeal claiming counsel was ineffective in multiple respects and arguing his kidnapping conviction failed under Garza v. State.
- The trial court denied the out-of-time appeal: it held Garza did not apply to a 2005 plea when no direct appeal was pending and found the facts at plea showed sufficient asportation; it also held Chism’s ineffective-assistance claims could not be resolved from the existing record and required a post-plea hearing or habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of out-of-time direct appeal after guilty plea | Chism: counsel failed to file appeal/withdraw plea; requests an out-of-time appeal | State: out-of-time appeal not available absent issues resolvable on existing record | Denied — guilty pleas do not guarantee direct appeal; out-of-time appeal only if issue can be resolved from the record |
| Applicability of Garza to kidnapping conviction | Chism: Garza requires more than slight movement, so kidnapping fails | State: Garza decided later and does not apply to a 2005 plea; facts show forced driving to deserted area satisfies asportation | Denied — Garza inapplicable to this plea posture and record shows sufficient asportation |
| Ineffective assistance claims raised after guilty plea | Chism: multiple specific failures by counsel (mental health, competency, plea advisement, mitigation) | State: claims cannot be resolved from the record and require an evidentiary post-plea hearing or habeas | Denied relief on direct appeal — claims must be pursued via habeas or post-plea hearing because record is insufficient |
| Access to transcript/indigency and appellate costs | Chism: sought transcript and pauper status to pursue appeal/habeas | State/Clerk: required payment or bill of costs; court later found him indigent and transmitted record to Court of Appeals | Court found no reversible error; procedural steps taken but substantive claims still not resolvable on record |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 266 Ga. 687 (defendant entering guilty plea has no automatic right to direct appeal)
- Grantham v. State, 267 Ga. 635 (direct appeal from guilty plea available only where issue can be resolved by reference to the record)
- Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 (asportation requirement for kidnapping — more than slight movement may be required)
- Wetherington v. State, 296 Ga. 451 (ineffective-assistance claims after a guilty plea ordinarily require post-plea hearing or habeas because they cannot be resolved from the record)