Seabrook v. State
315 Ga. App. 801
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Seabrook, pro se, appeals the dismissal of his coram nobis petition challenging his 1994 Alford plea to aggravated assault, armed robbery, and felon-in-possession.
- Trial court sentenced him to 3 years in prison and 4 years on probation after a negotiated plea.
- Seabrook alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, actual innocence, and an involuntary plea.
- Petition filed July 21, 2010, while Seabrook was serving a federal sentence enhanced by the 1994 convictions.
- Trial court dismissed for lack of newly discovered evidence, lack of jurisdiction to treat as a motion to withdraw plea, and untimeliness under habeas corpus rules.
- On appeal, court affirmed, holding coram nobis is obsolete and not available where claims concern evidence known at plea time; withdrawal of plea requires habeas if time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis petition could address the plea issues | Seabrook argues coram nobis admissible for innocence and counsel ineffectiveness | State contends petition not based on new evidence, thus ineligible | No relief; coram nobis unavailable for known-evidence claims |
| Whether petition could be treated as a motion to withdraw plea | Seabrook seeks withdrawal of guilty plea | Superior court lacked jurisdiction for post-term withdrawal | Jurisdiction improper; petition not a valid motion to withdraw plea |
| Whether habeas corpus was the appropriate remedy and timely | Seabrook contends need for habeas relief to challenge plea | Time limits for habeas petitions expired; petition untimely | Timely habeas relief not available; petition untimely under OCGA 9-14-42(c)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Moss v. State, 255 Ga. App. 107 (Ga. App. 2002) (preconditions for coram nobis and extraordinary motions mirror newly discovered evidence principles)
- LaFette v. State, 285 Ga. App. 516 (Ga. App. 2007) (withdrawal of plea requires timely post-conviction vehicle within jurisdiction)
- Harris v. State, 269 Ga. App. 92 (Ga. App. 2004) (reaffirms limits on post-judgment remedies and timing considerations)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. Supreme Court 1970) (Alford plea framework referenced in evaluating plea validity)