309 Ga. 857
Ga.2020Background
- Meheux was convicted of malice murder; judgment entered January 21, 2014.
- While still represented by trial counsel, Meheux (pro se) filed a motion for new trial on February 12, 2014.
- Trial counsel did not move to withdraw until April 25, 2014; the court granted withdrawal on September 2, 2014.
- New appellate counsel entered March 12, 2015 and later filed an "amended" motion for new trial more than 30 days after judgment; the court held a hearing March 21, 2018 and denied the motion July 23, 2018.
- The Supreme Court held the pro se motion was a legal nullity (because counsel still represented Meheux), the later "amended" motion was therefore the first operative motion but was filed untimely, and the trial court should have dismissed (not decided) it; the denial was vacated and the case remanded with directions to dismiss the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Meheux's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of pro se motion filed while represented | Pro se filing should be treated as a valid motion for new trial | Pro se filing is invalid because defendant was still represented | Pro se motion was a legal nullity when filed while counsel still represented defendant (Pounds) |
| Effect of attempting to amend a legal nullity | Amended motion by later counsel cures defect | An amended nullity cannot be revived; the amended filing is actually the first operative motion | A legal nullity cannot be amended into a timely motion; the later filing is the first operative motion (citing Dos Santos) |
| Timeliness of the operative (amended) motion | Amended motion should be considered on merits | Amended motion was filed outside OCGA § 5-5-40(a) 30-day period and is untimely | The operative motion was untimely and the trial court lacked jurisdiction; it should have dismissed the motion rather than decide it |
| Effect on appeal of underlying conviction | Preservation of right to appeal from conviction | Untimely motion does not toll appeal deadlines | An untimely motion for new trial does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal; appeal from underlying judgment is untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Pounds v. State, 309 Ga. 376 (legal nullity of pro se motion filed while defendant represented)
- Dos Santos v. State, 307 Ga. 151 (a legal nullity cannot be amended into a timely, operative motion)
- Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (out-of-time appeal may be available when appellate review lost due to counsel error)
- Fulton v. State, 277 Ga. 126 (untimely motion for new trial does not toll time to file notice of appeal)