Daniel v. the State
342 Ga. App. 448
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Daniel was convicted by a jury of first-degree burglary, four counts of entering an auto, two counts of financial transaction card theft, and two counts of identity theft; he was sentenced as a recidivist to 20 years to serve under OCGA § 17-10-7(c).
- Facts at trial: after using meth, Daniel and two women drove to a subdivision to steal; Daniel was dropped off and later returned with stolen items and gave cards to K.S., who used them at a gas station and attempted an ATM withdrawal; K.S. and D.H. testified for the State.
- Before trial the State offered a plea of 15 years with 6 to serve (recidivist); defense counsel negotiated alternative offers but told Daniel the court had discretion whether to impose recidivist parole ineligibility.
- Trial counsel incorrectly advised Daniel that sentencing as a recidivist (and parole ineligibility) was discretionary rather than mandatory under OCGA § 17-10-7(c); counsel did not object to admission of prior convictions at sentencing.
- At the motion for new trial the trial court denied ineffective-assistance relief, finding Daniel would not have accepted the plea; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding counsel’s advice deficient and the trial court’s credibility finding on acceptance clearly erroneous and remanded for further factual findings on prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Daniel's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was constitutionally deficient in plea advice about recidivist parole ineligibility | Counsel wrongly told Daniel parole/recidivist sentencing was discretionary; this misinformation was deficient | Counsel acted within bounds; no deficiency that affected plea decision | Held deficient: counsel misinterpreted Georgia law; failure to inform about mandatory parole ineligibility is constitutionally deficient (remanded) |
| Whether Daniel was prejudiced (would have accepted plea) | Daniel would have accepted State’s 15/6 plea if properly advised; he later offered to plead to burglary and said at hearing he would have accepted if he knew about parole ineligibility | Trial court found Daniel would not have accepted the plea due to his insistence on innocence and prior rejection of counsel’s advice | Court found trial court’s factual finding clearly erroneous on likelihood of acceptance and remanded for determination of remaining prejudice elements (whether prosecution would have kept offer and court acceptance) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions | Implicitly: convictions supported by witness testimony and corroborating transaction records | State: evidence was sufficient | Held sufficient: appellate court affirmed sufficiency of evidence supporting the convictions |
| Whether other trial errors (e.g., failure to request accomplice corroboration charge) require review | Daniel raised failure to give accomplice corroboration instruction / counsel deficiency | State did not prevail | Court declined to address remaining enumerations in light of plea-based reversal and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective assistance test)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (counsel must provide effective assistance during plea bargaining; prejudice standard when plea lost)
- Alexander v. State, 297 Ga. 59 (failure to inform client of recidivist parole ineligibility is constitutionally deficient)
- Johnson v. State, 289 Ga. 532 (evidence a defendant was amenable to plea despite professed innocence can satisfy Lafler acceptance element)
- Badger v. State, 310 Ga. App. 157 (appellate review standards for ineffective-assistance factual findings)