Drane v. State, 291 Ga. 298

Drane was convicted of murder and aggravated battery with a death sentence on the killed victim Renee Blackmon.
On direct appeal the Supreme Court affirmed most convictions and the death sentence, and remanded for a hearing on peremptory jury strikes and the denial of a jailhouse confession testimony.
After remand, the trial court conducted proceedings and the Court again affirmed Drane’s convictions and death sentence.
Drane later filed a habeas corpus petition which was denied; a certificate of probable cause to appeal was denied, then remanded for two unrelated issues.
During the habeas remand, Drane filed an extraordinary motion for a new trial asserting Willis confessed as the sole perpetrator.
The trial court denied the extraordinary motion; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the motion failed under multiple Timberlake requirements and due diligence standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Materiality of new evidence to guilt/innocence	Drane argues Willis’ new testimony would have produced a different guilt verdict.	State contends Willis’ testimony would not have altered guilt verdict given prior evidence and inconsistencies.	Willis’ testimony would not have probably changed guilt verdict.
Due diligence in pursuing newly-discovered evidence	Drane diligently pursued Willis’ testimony once Willis was convictable.	Drane did not diligently pursue Willis’ testimony for over 17 years.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; Drane failed diligence requirement; denial sustained.
Possibility of a different sentencing verdict	Willis’ testimony could have affected the sentencing phase.	Willis’ current testimony would not have meaningfully impacted sentencing because it undermines credibility and corroboration.	There was an independent basis to deny the motion as to sentencing; no probable change in verdict.
Independent basis to deny extraordinary motion for new trial	N/A	N/A	Court affirmed denial on independent grounds related to Timberlake requirements and due diligence.

Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488 (Ga. 1980) (six requirements for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
Dick v. State, 248 Ga. 898 (Ga. 1982) (procedural framework for extraordinary motions; case-law-derived rules)
Llewellyn v. State, 252 Ga. 426 (Ga. 1984) (diligence and delay in seeking witness deposition; policy reasons)
Patillo v. State, 258 Ga. 255 (Ga. 1988) (whether trial court may grant a new trial based on sentencing-alone issue)
Horton v. State, 249 Ga. 871 (Ga. 1982) (same issue of extraordinary motion for new trial; sentencing context)
Young v. State, 269 Ga. 490 (Ga. 1998) (standards for evaluating trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief)