Rice v. State
301 Ga. 746
Ga.2017Background
- On April 6, 2010, Michael Todd Rice reported being robbed by James Abney Jr.; later that day Rice and Stanley “Bo” Dominy located Abney and Rice fatally shot him in the head. Rice admitted presence but initially blamed Dominy as shooter.
- Rice and Dominy were indicted for malice murder, felony murder, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime; Rice was scheduled to be tried alone in January 2011.
- Rice’s original counsel was removed for a conflict shortly before trial; the case was continued and Ann Parman was appointed in late February. Rice complained Parman lacked time to prepare; Parman said she was prepared after reviewing files and conferring with prior counsel and prosecutors.
- On March 8, 2011, after telling the court his concerns about counsel were resolved, Rice pled guilty to felony murder pursuant to a joint recommendation and was sentenced to life with possibility of parole; other charges were nolle prossed.
- Rice moved to withdraw his guilty plea days later; after a hearing at which Rice and counsel testified, the trial court denied the motion. An out-of-time appeal was later granted and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rice’s plea was involuntary/under duress because counsel lacked time to prepare | Rice: Plea coerced by choice between pleading or going to trial with underprepared counsel | State: Rice affirmed at plea hearing that his concerns were resolved and plea was voluntary; counsel testified case was strong and she was prepared | Court: Plea was voluntary; trial court did not err in denying withdrawal of plea |
| Whether Rice received ineffective assistance of counsel from Parman | Rice: Parman’s limited preparation was objectively unreasonable and prejudiced him | State: Parman met multiple times with Rice, reviewed prior counsel’s file and State’s file, spoke with prosecutors and opposing counsel; Rice fails to specify omission or resulting prejudice | Court: Rice failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; ineffective-assistance claim denied |
| Whether failure to subpoena unspecified witnesses shows deficient performance | Rice: Parman should have subpoenaed witnesses (unspecified) | State: Rice did not identify which witnesses or how testimony would help; absence of specificity defeats claim | Court: Claim meritless for lack of specificity; no deficient performance shown |
| Whether Rice would have insisted on going to trial but for counsel’s errors (prejudice prong) | Rice: Would not have pled if counsel had more time to prepare | State: Record shows Rice affirmed voluntariness and was informed of strength of State’s case; no reasonable probability he would have insisted on trial | Court: Prejudice not shown; Hill standard not met, claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims — reasonable probability petitioner would not have pleaded)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (standards for showing counsel’s ineffectiveness in pretrial investigation and evidence contexts)
- Mims v. State, 299 Ga. 578 (2016) (Georgia precedent on voluntariness of guilty pleas)
- Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 304 (2005) (no fixed amount of conference time required; specificity required to show prejudice from failure to subpoena witnesses)