Rollf v. Carter
298 Ga. 557
Ga.2016Background
- In 2008 Russell Dean Rollf stabbed his estranged wife with intent to kill; he was tried, convicted of attempted murder, and sentenced to a term of years.
- Attempted murder under OCGA § 16-4-6 carries 1–30 years; aggravated assault with intent to murder under OCGA § 16-5-21(c) ordinarily carries 1–20 years.
- On direct appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the attempted murder conviction, holding the rule of lenity did not apply as between two felony punishments.
- After this Court decided McNair v. State (holding lenity may apply between differing felony punishments), Rollf sought habeas relief arguing the lenity rule should have yielded a conviction for aggravated assault rather than attempted murder.
- The habeas court denied relief based on res judicata from Rollf’s direct appeal; Rollf appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
- The Supreme Court held McNair did not announce a change in law (it was dictated by prior Supreme Court precedent), so res judicata barred habeas relief and the habeas denial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Rollf's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rule of lenity applies to resolve ambiguity between two felony punishments (attempted murder vs aggravated assault) | Lenity applies because differing punishments created ambiguity; he should be limited to the lesser offense (aggravated assault) | Lenity does not apply between two felonies; conviction for attempted murder stands | The Court reaffirmed that lenity can apply between felony punishments (McNair), but that principle was not a new change in law here |
| Whether McNair constituted a change in the law sufficient to overcome res judicata on habeas | McNair changed governing law from Court of Appeals precedent and thus overcomes res judicata | McNair merely followed and applied preexisting Supreme Court precedent, so it did not change the law | McNair did not announce a new rule; it was dictated by prior Supreme Court decisions, so it is not a change in law |
| Whether decisions of the Court of Appeals that conflicted with Supreme Court precedent were binding | Rollf relied on Court of Appeals holdings that lenity never applies between felonies | State argued Supreme Court precedent controls; Court of Appeals decisions inconsistent with Supreme Court are not binding | Supreme Court decisions bind; conflicting Court of Appeals decisions do not effect a change in law |
| Whether Rollf’s habeas petition could overcome procedural bar (res judicata) | Habeas relief is warranted because McNair altered the law in Rollf’s favor | Res judicata bars relitigation absent a change in law or facts; McNair did not effect such a change | Res judicata applied; habeas petition properly denied and judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Banta v. State, 281 Ga. 615 (2007) (describing rule of lenity as resolving penal ambiguities in defendant's favor)
- Dixon v. State, 278 Ga. 4 (2004) (discussion of lenity where statutes yield misdemeanor vs felony punishments)
- McNair v. State, 293 Ga. 282 (2013) (held lenity may apply when differing felony punishments create ambiguity)
- Rollf v. State, 314 Ga. App. 596 (2012) (Court of Appeals decision affirming attempted murder conviction and rejecting lenity between felonies)
- Gee v. State, 225 Ga. 669 (1969) (Supreme Court applied lenity to resolve conflict among felony sentencing provisions)
- Bankston v. State, 258 Ga. 188 (1988) (invoked lenity when ambiguity implicated death vs life imprisonment)