FORD v. TATE (And Vice Versa)
307 Ga. 383
Ga.2019Background
- In 2005 Nicholas Cody Tate pleaded guilty to two malice murders (Chrissie and her 3‑year‑old daughter Katelyn) and related crimes; he waived a jury for the sentencing phase and the trial court imposed death for each murder. The convictions and death sentences were affirmed on direct appeal (Tate v. State).
- Tate filed a state habeas petition in 2012 (filed the day his execution was scheduled); after an evidentiary hearing the habeas court denied relief as to convictions but granted relief as to the death sentences, finding ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing for failing to investigate/present mitigation.
- The Warden appealed the habeas court’s vacation of the death sentences; Tate cross‑appealed denial of other habeas claims (competency to plead, counsel’s conduct re: judge’s acquaintance interview, waiver of jury for sentencing, failure to present co‑defendant testimony, speedy‑trial claim, prosecutorial inconsistent‑theories claim, post‑conviction counsel conflict).
- The record showed overwhelming inculpatory evidence, multiple evaluations by Dr. Kevin Richards (2003, 2005), trial counsel (Cella and Reed) investigated and litigated extensively, but Tate repeatedly expressed a desire not to present mitigation and to accept death (based on religious beliefs developed in custody).
- The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the habeas court’s vacation of the death sentences (Warden appeal) and affirmed denial of Tate’s cross‑appeal claims, concluding that Tate was competent, made an informed decision to limit mitigation, and could not show Strickland prejudice from counsel’s alleged mitigation failures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tate) | Defendant's Argument (Warden / State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate/present mitigation at sentencing | Counsel failed to develop and present extensive mitigating evidence (abuse, PTSD/Complex PTSD, neuropsychological deficits, chronic drug dependence) — prejudice under Strickland | Counsel investigated, consulted experts, and were constrained by Tate’s explicit instruction to forego mitigation; where defendant actively refused mitigation, no prejudice under Schriro v. Landrigan | Court: Tate knowingly/competently instructed counsel not to present mitigation; even assuming deficiency, no Strickland prejudice — reversed habeas grant and reinstated death sentences |
| Whether Tate was competent to plead guilty | Dr. Richards lacked full background info; had he known, he might have found Tate incompetent to plead | Tate was evaluated twice and found competent; counsel provided Dr. Richards sufficient information and would have produced more if requested | Court: competency findings supported; trial counsel not ineffective; habeas denial affirmed |
| Whether counsel erred by permitting private interview with judge’s acquaintance pre‑plea | The interview risked trial judge bias; counsel should have prevented/examined it | No evidence the acquaintance influenced judge or that judge was biased; Tate offered only speculation | Court: no structural error, no prejudice shown; claim denied |
| Whether waiver of jury for sentencing was ineffective assistance | Waiver deprived Tate of safer sentencing vehicle; counsel pressured/‘outsmarted’ Tate | Waiver was strategic after long voir dire and perception judge was likely to be lenient; made with client input | Court: counsel’s advice reasonable; decision strategic; claim denied |
| Failure to present Chad Tate, plea colloquies, custodial statements at sentencing | Those materials would have shown Chad was the triggerman and reduced Tate’s culpability | Counsel attempted to use favorable portions via cross‑examination and strategically avoided putting Chad on stand given risks/inconsistencies | Court: reasonable trial strategy; no deficient performance shown; claim denied |
| Speedy trial and inconsistent‑theories claims | Delay and changing prosecution theories prejudiced Tate | Claims procedurally defaulted; counsel reasonably chose not to demand speedy trial; State’s arguments were permissible inferences from ambiguous evidence | Court: procedural default upheld; counsel not ineffective; underlying inconsistent‑theories claim lacks merit |
| Post‑conviction counsel conflict / right to new counsel | Habeas counsel failed to establish relationship and timely act; conflict required relief | Trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing requested substitutions; counsel performed work and complied with obligations | Court: no abuse of discretion; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (a defendant who refuses to allow presentation of mitigating evidence cannot show Strickland prejudice for counsel’s failure to investigate/present it)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (standard for competence to plead guilty equals competence to stand trial)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigation depending on circumstances; contrasts with Landrigan)
- Krawczuk v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, 873 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.) (discusses informed‑waiver analysis re: mitigation and counsel’s investigation)
- Allen v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, 611 F.3d 740 (11th Cir.) (applies Landrigan where defendant limited mitigation; discusses competence and informed waiver of mitigation)
- Tate v. State, 287 Ga. 364 (affirming convictions and death sentences on direct appeal)
- Mize v. State, 269 Ga. 646 (discusses defendant’s right to make ultimate decision about presenting mitigation and competency/informed decision principles)