Pruitt v. State
323 Ga. App. 689
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Landrea Pruitt was indicted on five counts of theft by taking related to her bookkeeping roles; she pled guilty before jury closing arguments and was sentenced as a recidivist to 20 years (7 to serve) plus restitution and a fine.
- Pruitt moved post-sentence to withdraw her nonnegotiated guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to review discovery timely, not contacting/subpoenaing proposed witnesses, insufficient consultation).
- At the withdrawal hearing Pruitt testified but did not call trial counsel or other witnesses; the trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
- The trial record showed counsel conducted cross-examination, objected to motions, moved for directed verdict, used an investigator, attempted to contact witnesses, discussed habeas rights with Pruitt, and advised strategy focusing on company disorganization and Pruitt’s testimony.
- The trial court applied Strickland’s two-pronged ineffective-assistance test and found Pruitt failed to overcome the presumption of reasonable professional assistance or show prejudice that would have changed her decision to plead.
Issues
| Issue | Pruitt’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel failed to prepare (late discovery review) | Counsel didn’t obtain or review discovery until days before trial, so was unprepared | Counsel reviewed evidence, cross-examined effectively, and Pruitt saw State’s evidence; no showing of prejudice | Denied — no deficient performance or prejudice shown; trial adversarial features present |
| Counsel failed to locate/subpoena witnesses | Counsel didn’t subpoena witnesses Pruitt identified, depriving her defense | Counsel and investigator attempted contact; inability to locate and strategic decision not to call them | Denied — strategic choice and no affirmative showing witnesses would have helped; no prejudice shown |
| Counsel failed to consult adequately | Counsel didn’t meet with Pruitt between arraignment and trial | There were communications (calendar call, phone); counsel prepared her about testimony and sentencing; no evidence omitted defenses | Denied — no magic minimum consultation time; Pruitt didn’t show what additional preparation would have produced |
| Cumulative error claim | Multiple individual errors together rendered counsel ineffective | Georgia doesn’t recognize cumulative-error doctrine; no preserved or cited record support | Denied — no cumulative-error relief; issues inadequately supported in brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Currid v. DeKalb State Court Probation Dept., 274 Ga. App. 704 (briefing rules and appellate responsibility)
- Towry v. State, 304 Ga. App. 139 (requirements for meaningful appellate argument)
- Burrowes v. State, 296 Ga. App. 629 (appellate court not required to scour record for error)
- Bailey v. State, 313 Ga. App. 824 (motion to withdraw plea reviewed for abuse of discretion; Strickland applies)
- McCloud v. State, 240 Ga. App. 335 (defendant must show reasonable probability she would not have pled guilty but for counsel’s errors)
- Suggs v. State, 272 Ga. 85 (appellate courts independently apply legal principles to facts)
- Hutto v. State, 320 Ga. App. 235 (presumption counsel’s conduct is reasonable; difficult to overcome when counsel doesn’t testify)
- Jones v. State, 315 Ga. App. 427 (calling defense witnesses is trial strategy)
- Fraser v. State, 283 Ga. App. 477 (cumulative-error doctrine not recognized in Georgia)
- Daniels v. State, 296 Ga. App. 795 (no fixed minimum time required for counsel preparation)