Gramiak v. Beasley, 304 Ga. 512

Background

Defendant Isaac Beasley was convicted by jury of rape, aggravated sodomy, kidnapping with bodily injury (which carries a mandatory life sentence), and aggravated assault; he received multiple consecutive and concurrent terms including life for kidnapping.
Before trial the State offered a plea: 20 years for rape with 10 years to serve and nolle prosequi as to other counts; Beasley rejected the offer and went to trial.
Trial counsel did not advise Beasley that the kidnapping count carried a mandatory life sentence; counsel believed combined exposure would not reach life.
Beasley filed a pro se habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise on direct appeal trial counsel’s failure to advise him of the mandatory life exposure; habeas counsel later submitted a proposed order granting relief.
The habeas court found trial counsel deficient and appellate counsel ineffective for not raising that issue on appeal, set aside convictions and sentences, and the warden appealed.
The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the habeas court’s order and remanded, instructing the habeas court to apply the Lafler/Frye framework to determine prejudice and to make specific factual findings about whether Beasley would have accepted the plea and whether the trial court would have accepted it; appellate-counsel deficiency must also be separately evaluated.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Beasley)	Defendant's Argument (Warden)	Held
Whether trial counsel was constitutionally deficient for failing to advise Beasley of mandatory life exposure on the kidnapping count	Counsel failed to inform Beasley of a mandatory life sentence, depriving him of informed advice about the plea	Trial record contained some indications (prosecutor’s statement at plea hearing) that punishment was communicated	Court: Trial counsel performance was deficient (failure to advise of mandatory life was outside competent advice)
Whether Beasley was prejudiced by trial counsel’s deficiency (i.e., would the plea outcome have differed)	Beasley would have accepted the State’s plea (ten years to serve) if told of life exposure	Warden points to equivocal contemporaneous evidence and counsel’s trial testimony suggesting Beasley resisted pleas; no direct sworn testimony from Beasley	Court: Prejudice not resolved on record; remand to determine whether a reasonable probability exists that Beasley would have accepted the plea and that the court would have approved it (apply Lafler/Frye)
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial-counsel ineffectiveness on direct appeal	Appellate counsel omitted the issue, denying effective appellate advocacy and meritorious relief	Appellate counsel made strategic choices, investigated, and had limited evidence that the claim would succeed on appeal/habeas	Court: Cannot conclude appellate deficiency without remand; appellate deficiency requires showing counsel’s choice was objectively unreasonable given information available at the time
Appropriate remedy if appellate and/or trial counsel ineffective	Beasley sought vacation of convictions and enforcement of the plea terms he claims he would have accepted	Warden opposed wholesale relief absent proper findings on the Lafler elements and appellate deficiency	Court: Remanded for factual findings; if both Strickland/Lafler prongs met, habeas court must then consider an appropriate remedy that avoids windfall per Lafler guidance

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong test)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (prejudice standard when deficient advice causes rejection of plea offer)
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (defense counsel’s obligation re: plea offers and prejudice analysis)
Humphrey v. Lewis, 291 Ga. 202 (appellate‑counsel prejudice standard; reasonable probability of different outcome on appeal)
Lloyd v. State, 258 Ga. 645 (inference from evidence that defendant would have accepted plea may suffice)
Cleveland v. State, 285 Ga. 142 (reaffirming need to assess credibility of post‑verdict claims about plea acceptance)
Trim v. Shepard, 300 Ga. 176 (appellate‑counsel deficiency requires objective unreasonableness)