HALL, WARDEN v. JACKSON (And Vice Versa)
310 Ga. 714
| Ga. | 2021Background
- In 2007 Matthew Jackson was convicted of multiple armed robberies and related charges; he was represented at trial by Charles Norman of the Paulding County Public Defender’s Office.
- Jackson filed an out-of-time motion for new trial and, in 2013, Andrew Fleischman (also from the same public defender’s office and a subordinate to Norman) amended that motion and handled the direct appeal.
- Fleischman raised suppression- and procedure-based claims but did not raise three ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel (IATC) claims he believed meritorious because he worked under Norman and feared the office conflict; he discussed transferring the case to conflict counsel but Norman rebuffed him.
- Jackson later filed a habeas petition alleging (a) trial counsel Norman provided ineffective assistance in three respects and (b) appellate/motion-for-new-trial counsel Fleischman had an actual conflict of interest that prevented him from raising IATC claims.
- The habeas court denied relief on the trial-counsel IATC claims but granted relief on the conflict-of-interest claim and set aside convictions; the State appealed and Jackson cross-appealed.
- The Georgia Supreme Court: affirmed that Fleischman had an actual conflict that significantly and adversely affected representation; vacated the portion of the habeas remedy that set aside convictions (rejecting a new trial) and ordered a new out-of-time appeal so conflict-free counsel can pursue a new motion for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson) | Defendant's Argument (Warden/Hall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate/motion-for-new-trial counsel had an "actual conflict of interest" that significantly and adversely affected representation | Fleischman, constrained by working under trial counsel Norman in the same PD office, could not raise IATC claims; the conflict materially affected his performance | Warden argued precedent allows raising such IATC claims in habeas and that Fleischman’s omissions could reflect strategy, not a disqualifying conflict | Held: Yes. The evidence (Fleischman’s testimony and interaction with Norman) showed an actual conflict that significantly and adversely affected representation; prejudice presumed. |
| Standard for proving conflict-based ineffective assistance and whether prejudice must be shown | Jackson: need only show an actual conflict that significantly affected counsel’s performance; no need to show outcome prejudice | Warden: urged scrutiny and reliance on cases distinguishing strategic choices from conflicts; contended procedural posture matters | Held: Georgia follows federal precedent—once an actual conflict that significantly affected representation is shown, prejudice is presumed; no separate showing of Strickland outcome prejudice required. |
| Proper remedy for an actual conflict by appellate/motion-for-new-trial counsel (new trial vs. second out-of-time appeal) | Jackson sought relief from conflict, effectively a new opportunity to litigate IATC claims | Warden contended remedy should not necessarily be an out-of-time appeal or that habeas court’s setting aside of convictions was inappropriate | Held: Remedy is a new out-of-time appeal and opportunity to file a new motion for new trial with conflict-free counsel; a new trial is not the appropriate remedy here. |
| Whether habeas court erred in denying relief on the three trial-counsel IATC claims | Jackson maintained trial counsel was ineffective and habeas relief on those claims was warranted | Warden defended the habeas court’s denial on the merits | Held: Vacated denial as premature — those IATC claims should be evaluated and, if appropriate, raised in a new motion for new trial by conflict-free counsel and decided by the trial court first. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (presumption of prejudice where an actual conflict significantly affects representation)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (definition and focus of an "actual conflict" impacting counsel’s performance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (general ineffective-assistance two-part test)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (right to effective assistance on direct appeal)
- Edwards v. Lewis, 283 Ga. 345 (2008) (Georgia application of conflict-of-interest principles)
- Tolbert v. State, 298 Ga. 147 (2015) (clarifying actual vs. potential conflict in Georgia)
- Ryan v. Thomas, 261 Ga. 661 (1991) (procedural recognition that IATC claims barred on appeal because of public defender office conflicts may be raised in habeas)
- Trauth v. State, 295 Ga. 874 (2014) (remedy of a second out-of-time direct appeal when appellate rights were impaired)