Hambrick v. Brannen
289 Ga. 682
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Brannen pled to family violence battery, terroristic threats, and reckless conduct under the First Offender Act, receiving probated sentences and probation for terroristic threats.
- A subsequent revocation petition alleged new felonies involving violence against Brannen's mother, leading to a probation revocation hearing in August 2007.
- After the hearing, Brannen's first-offender probation was revoked; he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to five years in prison with credit for time served on probation.
- In July 2008 Brannen sought a writ of habeas corpus, asserting several grounds, ultimately narrowing to ineffective assistance of counsel at the revocation and re-adjudication hearing.
- The habeas court granted relief, finding defense counsel deficient for failing to investigate Brannen's mental health history and that such investigation could have altered the outcome.
- The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding no deficient performance or prejudice was shown, and found the habeas court’s conclusions were contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel deficient for not investigating mental health? | Brannen | Brannen | No deficiency; strategic decision. |
| Did the alleged deficiency prejudice the outcome of the revocation proceeding? | Brannen | Brannen | No prejudice; speculative. |
| Was counsel's decision not to pursue a mental health defense a valid strategic choice? | Brannen | Brannen | Yes, strategic and reasonable. |
| Did the habeas court apply Strickland correctly in evaluating deficiency and prejudice? | Brannen | Brannen | No, misapplied; reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. Hames, 287 Ga. 534 (Ga. 2010) (habeas corpus standards; deference to factual findings with independent legal review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Morgan v. State, 275 Ga. 222 (2002) (strong presumption of reasonable professional conduct; evaluating counsel conduct)
- Martin v. Barrett, 279 Ga. 593 (2005) (insanity/mental-health evidence; evaluation of strategy in context)
- Nichols v. State, 281 Ga. 483 (2007) (prejudice under Strickland requires evidence, not speculation)
- Whitus v. State, 287 Ga. 801 (2010) (speculation cannot satisfy prejudice prong)