Cox v. Howerton, 290 Ga. 693

Cox pled guilty in 1998 to aggravated child molestation, child molestation, and incest in Mitchell County with consecutive terms of 30 and 20 years, and a concurrent 10-year term.
The trial court informed Cox she would be parole-eligible after 10 years, but statutes later mandated 30 years before parole for the first conviction of a serious violent felony.
Cox was sentenced under former OCGA § 17-10-6.1(c)(3) to serve 30 years before parole eligibility for the aggravated child molestation conviction.
In July 2008, Cox filed a habeas petition alleging, among others, ineffective assistance of counsel for misrepresenting parole eligibility.
The habeas court denied relief; this Court granted a certificate of probable cause and remanded to analyze the prejudice prong of Strickland.
On remand, the habeas court again denied relief, finding no reasonable probability Cox would have gone to trial if correctly informed about parole.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prejudice prong of Strickland was satisfied	Cox argues misstatement about parole created a reasonable probability of different outcome	Howerton contends no reasonable probability of different outcome given overwhelming evidence of guilt and lack of special circumstances	Prejudice not shown; Cox failed to prove a reasonable probability of different outcome
Whether misrepresentation of parole eligibility constitutes ineffective assistance in a guilty-plea case	Cox contends counsel's misrepresentation misled her about parole	Howerton contends misrepresentation was not outcome-determinative given evidence against Cox	No reversible prejudice established under Strickland
What factual circumstances are required to show 'special circumstances' and emphasis on parole in deciding to plead	Cox maintained there were distinctive circumstances elevating parole concerns	No special circumstances evident in Cox's case	No special circumstances found; prejudice still lacking
What standard of review applies to habeas court findings on ineffective assistance in plea negotiations	Higher scrutiny of prejudice findings	Affirm habeas findings and apply de novo review to legal conclusions	Factual findings preserved; legal conclusions reviewed de novo and upheld

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes prejudice and deficient-performance standards for ineffective assistance)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland standards apply to guilty-plea cases; focus on plea bargaining prejudice)
McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (right to effective counsel in guilty plea)
Davis v. Murrell, 279 Ga. 584 (2005) (special circumstances and defendant’s decision-making in plea)
Rakestraw v. State, 278 Ga. 872 (2005) (defer to habeas court factual findings; de novo review of law)
Crowder v. State, 288 Ga. 739 (2011) (discusses parole eligibility in context of statutory provisions)