Rutledge v. the State
340 Ga. App. 765
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In April 2012 Louis Rutledge pled guilty to one count of burglary in Troup County after a negotiated plea; the indictment did not charge recidivism but the State gave notice it would seek recidivist sentencing.
- Based on at least four prior burglary convictions, the trial court sentenced Rutledge as a recidivist under OCGA § 17-10-7(a) and (c) to 20 years, with nine years to serve in prison without parole and 11 years to be probated.
- In 2014 Rutledge moved to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming neither the court nor counsel informed him that recidivist sentencing would bar parole, so his plea was not knowing and voluntary; the trial court denied relief for lack of jurisdiction to withdraw the plea after the term of court expired.
- In May 2016 Rutledge filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal arguing counsel failed to advise him of parole consequences and of his appellate/habeas rights; the trial court denied the motion, concluding the claims could not be resolved on the existing record.
- Rutledge appealed the denial of an out-of-time appeal. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the claims could be resolved from the record and thus whether an out-of-time direct appeal was available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rutledge is entitled to an out-of-time direct appeal based on counsel’s failure to advise about parole consequences | Rutledge: counsel and the court failed to inform him that recidivist sentencing eliminated parole eligibility, so his plea was not knowing and he had a right to appeal | State: The claim cannot be resolved solely from the record; therefore no right to a direct appeal and the remedy is habeas corpus | Denied: Claims about parole advice and appellate rights cannot be decided on the record and must be pursued by habeas corpus; denial of out-of-time appeal affirmed |
| Whether counsel’s failure to advise of appellate/habeas rights alone entitles Rutledge to out-of-time appeal | Rutledge: counsel failed to notify him of right to challenge plea on direct appeal or via habeas | State: Mere allegation of non-notification, when resolution requires expansion of record, is insufficient for out-of-time appeal | Denied: Allegation alone insufficient; issues requiring evidentiary development are not grounds for out-of-time appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 274 Ga. 865 (explaining trial court jurisdiction limits on post-term plea withdrawals)
- Burns v. State, 291 Ga. 547 (ineffective-assistance claims about parole/appellate advice require post-plea evidentiary hearing; habeas corpus remedy)
- Gibson v. State, 290 Ga. 516 (claims of counsel ineffectiveness not resolvable on record must be pursued in habeas)
- Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391 (when record cannot show prejudice from counsel’s advice, habeas relief is required to expand the record)
- Brown v. State, 290 Ga. 321 (ineffective-assistance claims often cannot be resolved from plea transcript and need habeas)
- Wetherington v. State, 296 Ga. 451 (describing Strickland standard for ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficiency and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- English v. State, 307 Ga. App. 544 (denial of out-of-time appeal is directly appealable when no direct appeal was previously taken)
- Arrington v. State, 332 Ga. App. 481 (standard of review: appellate review for abuse of discretion of denial of out-of-time appeal)