Ringold v. State
304 Ga. 875
Ga.2019Background
- In 2012 Richard Terrance Ringold pled guilty to four murders, aggravated assault, and weapons offenses to avoid the death penalty and was sentenced to concurrent life terms without parole; he later filed to withdraw his plea.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Ringold’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea; the court did not on the record notify him of his right to appeal that denial.
- 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 was ineffective for failing to advise or pursue an appeal.
- The trial court summarily denied the out-of-time appeal motion without a hearing; Ringold appealed that denial to the Georgia Supreme Court pro se.
- The Georgia Supreme Court held Ringold waived any claim that the trial court itself erred by failing to inform him of appeal rights (because he did not raise it below) but vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to apply the Flores-Ortega test to determine whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to consult about or file a timely appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ringold) | Defendant's Argument (State/DA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ringold preserved a claim that the trial court failed to inform him of his right to appeal the denial of his motion to withdraw plea | Trial court’s failure deprived him of appeal rights; entitles him to out-of-time appeal (relying on Carter) | State: not raised in the out-of-time motion, so issue is waived | Waived — not preserved in the trial court; Court declines to decide broader Carter rule now |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise/pursue an appeal from denial of motion to withdraw plea | Counsel failed to inform/pursue appeal, causing loss of appellate review; entitles him to an out-of-time appeal | DA argues Ringold failed to show prejudice from counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness | Vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing under the Flores‑Ortega framework to determine deficiency and prejudice (entitlement to out-of-time appeal if both met) |
| Proper standard for evaluating failure-to-appeal claims | Ringold invoked Carter; urged relief based on trial-court or counsel error | State/AG: counsel-based Flores‑Ortega standard governs; Carter insufficient | Court instructs to apply U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Roe v. Flores‑Ortega (Flores‑Ortega controls the Sixth Amendment analysis) |
| Prejudice standard required to obtain out-of-time appeal after guilty plea | Ringold argued he was deprived of an appeal and should get one | Some Georgia precedent required showing appeal would have succeeded; Court and concurrence reject that requirement | Court follows Flores‑Ortega: prejudice is showing a reasonable probability he would have timely appealed (not that the appeal would have been meritorious) |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (controls ineffective‑assistance analysis when counsel fails to consult about or file an appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1985) (Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance on first appeal of right)
- Carter v. Johnson, 278 Ga. 202 (Ga. 2004) (Georgia precedent on out‑of‑time appeals; Court notes limits and declines to rely on Carter for federal constitutional standard)
- Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (Ga. 1994) (recognizes out‑of‑time appeal as remedy where counsel’s failure deprived defendant of first appeal)
- Gable v. State, 290 Ga. 81 (Ga. 2011) (explains OCGA § 5‑6‑38 filing deadlines may be excused to remedy constitutional violations affecting appeals)