Ringold v. State
304 Ga. 875
Ga.2019Background
- In 2012 Ringold pleaded guilty to four murders, aggravated assault, and related firearm counts to avoid the death penalty; he was sentenced to concurrent life terms without parole.
- About one month later Ringold timely moved to withdraw his guilty plea; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied the motion.
- Ringold did not file a timely appeal from the denial. In 2017 he filed a pro se motion for an out-of-time appeal, arguing his counsel failed to advise him of (or file) an appeal; the trial court denied that motion without a hearing.
- Ringold appealed the denial pro se, asserting (1) the trial court and his counsel failed to advise him of his right to appeal the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea, and (2) counsel was ineffective for not filing an appeal.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia held Ringold waived any claim that the trial court erred (because he did not raise it below) but vacated the denial of the out-of-time appeal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether counsel was ineffective under the Flores‑Ortega/Strickland framework.
Issues
| Issue | Ringold's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court’s failure to inform Ringold of appeal rights entitles him to out-of-time appeal | Trial court (and counsel) failed to advise him of right to appeal denial of motion to withdraw plea; that frustrates his right to appeal | AG argued Ringold waived this claim by not raising it below; DA contended no hearing required because no prejudice shown | Claim of trial-court error waived for failure to raise below; not decided on merits |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not advising or filing a timely appeal from denial of motion to withdraw plea | Counsel was ineffective under Sixth Amendment; this deprived him of an appeal and entitles him to out-of-time appeal | AG agreed Carter/Flores‑Ortega require a hearing to determine who bears responsibility; DA argued Ringold showed no prejudice | Remanded for an evidentiary hearing to apply Flores‑Ortega/Strickland to determine if counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudicial |
| Standard to assess counsel’s failure to consult or file appeal | Ringold: counsel should have advised him about appeal advantages/disadvantages and filed if he wished | State: apply controlling federal standards | Court requires applying Roe v. Flores‑Ortega’s two-step test (consultation inquiry; if no consultation, whether failure was deficient given whether a rational defendant would want an appeal) and Strickland prejudice analysis adapted to appeals |
| Prejudice requirement for entitlement to out-of-time appeal after guilty plea | Ringold argued entitlement without showing his hypothetical appeal would win | DA argued no prejudice shown so no hearing needed | Court follows Flores‑Ortega: defendant need only show reasonable probability he would have timely appealed (not that appeal would have succeeded); remand for hearing to resolve deficient performance and reasonable probability of appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (establishes duty to consult about appeal and prejudice standard when counsel fails to file an appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (governs ineffective assistance of counsel analysis)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (recognizes right to effective assistance on first appeal of right)
- Carter v. Johnson, 278 Ga. 202 (Georgia case on out‑of‑time appeals; discussed and limited here)
- Gable v. State, 290 Ga. 81 (Georgia rule excusing late notice of appeal where necessary to remedy constitutional violation)
- Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (remedy for deprivation of first appeal of right is out‑of‑time appeal)
- Syms v. State, 240 Ga. App. 440 (rejects duty of trial court to inform defendant of appeal rights)
- Thorpe v. State, 253 Ga. App. 263 (addresses counsel’s failure to inform defendant of appeal rights)