Coleman v. State
318 Ga. App. 478
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Coleman convicted on Aug 5, 2009 of criminal attempt to commit burglary.
- He moved for a new trial in Sept 2009; amended motion filed Apr 1, 2011 asserting indictment defect and ineffective assistance for not filing a demurrer.
- Trial court denied the motion; Coleman appeals the denial.
- Issue concerns whether the indictment adequately alleged intent to commit theft.
- Court analyzes whether a general/special demurrer was timely and whether indictment defects were prejudicial.
- Court ultimately affirms conviction and finds no error in indictment or ineffective-assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment adequately alleges intent | Coleman: indictment lacks essential element of intent to theft | State: indictment properly charges criminal attempt with intent | Indictment sufficient; intent inferred from alleged substantial step |
| Ineffective assistance for not filing demurrer | Coleman: counsel deficient for failing to demur | State: no prejudice; demurrer would not have prevented reindictment | No prejudice; trial counsel not ineffective; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stinson v. State, 279 Ga. 177 (Ga. 2005) (indictment and demurrer standards; double jeopardy considerations cited)
- Palmer v. State, 282 Ga. 466 (Ga. 2007) (language tracking of statute; sufficiency of indictment language)
- Motes v. State, 262 Ga. App. 728 (Ga. App. 2003) (reaffirming standards for amendment/defect handling in indictments)
- Davis v. State, 281 Ga. App. 855 (Ga. App. 2006) (indictment language deemed sufficient when it mirrors statute)
- Kirt v. State, 309 Ga. App. 227 (Ga. App. 2011) (discusses demurrer timing and harmless error considerations)