Norwood v. State
311 Ga. App. 815
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Norwood pled guilty to obstruction of an officer and disorderly conduct in April 2010 as part of a negotiated plea, with probation sentences imposed concurrent to prior probation.
- At plea/hearing, Norwood acknowledged understanding of probation revocation risk and that the court was not bound by sentencing recommendations.
- Norwood’s probation for two burglary convictions and aggravated assault was revoked following the plea hearing, with two-year terms concurrent.
- In May 2010, Norwood, pro se, filed an Order of Plea Withdrawal; trial counsel later moved to withdraw the plea claiming ineffective assistance and lack of voluntary/knowingly entered plea.
- The trial court held a hearing in October 2010 and denied the motion; Norwood appealed the denial arguing ineffective assistance and lack of voluntary/knowing entry.
- On appeal, the State argued that the record supported Norwood’s understanding of the plea and its consequences; Norwood failed to show ineffective assistance or misrepresentation by counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal of the guilty plea. | Norwood alleges ineffective counsel and involuntary/unknowing plea. | State contends no manifest injustice; record shows understanding of charges and consequences. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to discuss consequences and misinforming about probation implications. | Counsel failed to explain charges and consequences; misrepresented collateral consequences. | Record shows Norwood understood probation revocation and court may deviate from recommendations; credibility issues for trial court. | Not proven; record supports effective assistance under standard. |
| Whether Norwood entered his guilty plea voluntarily and knowingly based on the plea hearing record. | Norwood relied on probation officer's suggested term and believed agreement compatible with plea. | Court ensured Norwood understood charges, consequences, and that negotiations were not binding. | Plea was voluntary and knowingly entered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maddox v. State, 278 Ga. 823, 607 S.E.2d 587 (Ga. 2005) (manifest injustice standard for withdrawal of guilty plea)
- Trimble v. State, 274 Ga.App. 536, 618 S.E.2d 163 (Ga. App. 2005) (abuse of discretion in ruling on withdrawal)
- Price v. State, 280 Ga.App. 869, 635 S.E.2d 236 (Ga. App. 2006) (burden to show intelligent and voluntary plea with understanding of charges and consequences)
- James v. State, 309 Ga.App. 721, 710 S.E.2d 905 (Ga. App. 2011) (review of effectiveness of trial counsel with deference to trial court findings)
- McCloud v. State, 240 Ga.App. 335, 525 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. App. 1999) (credibility judgments governing plea withdrawal proceedings)