State v. Garland, 298 Ga. 482

Background

Garland was convicted (sexual battery of a child), served the jail term, and was sentenced to probation; new counsel (called appellate counsel) filed a motion for new trial asserting trial counsel failed to investigate Garland’s mental health.
While Garland was re-incarcerated on a probation violation, appellate counsel testified he agreed with the State to withdraw the motion for new trial so Garland could be released and returned to probation in Texas; no written waiver was signed and the court was not shown to have been informed of the deal.
Appellate counsel withdrew the motion for new trial without Garland’s informed consent (the parties dispute whether Garland was told or agreed); the direct appeal later proceeded and the conviction was affirmed.
Garland filed a habeas petition alleging appellate counsel was ineffective for (1) entering the agreement and withdrawing the motion without Garland’s consent, and (2) failing to investigate/present Garland’s significant mental-health issues and competency evidence.
Uncontradicted expert evidence established Garland suffered from a progressive cognitive disorder (multiple mini-strokes) causing memory, anxiety, and impairment relevant to competency and criminal responsibility; the habeas court credited Garland’s testimony that he would not have agreed to the withdrawal.
The habeas court found counsel (trial and appellate) ineffective and granted relief; the State conceded deficient performance by appellate counsel but appealed the habeas court’s prejudice finding.

Issues

Issue	Garland's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for withdrawing motion for new trial without Garland's informed consent	Appellate counsel agreed with State and withdrew motion without consulting Garland; this waived post-conviction claims and was objectively unreasonable	Agreed appellate counsel erred, but argued no resulting prejudice	Court accepted the concession of deficient performance and affirmed habeas relief on prejudice ground
Whether appellate counsel's errors caused prejudice (Strickland second prong)	Prejudice exists because trial counsel never investigated competency; had the motion stayed, Garland likely would have prevailed on motion for new trial or raised competency/mental-health defenses	Loss of appellate relief on direct appeal does not prove prejudice; State argued no reasonable probability of a different outcome	Court held prejudice satisfied as to the motion-for-new-trial proceeding: reasonable probability the withdrawn claims would have undermined confidence in outcome
Proper focus of prejudice inquiry (motion for new trial vs. direct appeal)	Habeas court should assess whether withdrawal affected motion-for-new-trial outcome (not only direct appeal)	Argued habeas court should consider effect on direct appeal and final conviction	Court ruled the correct focus is the motion-for-new-trial proceeding and agreed habeas court properly evaluated prejudice there
Effect of Garland's mental incompetence evidence on prejudice and counsel duties	Garland would not have consented; uninvestigated mental illness/competency could have been a defense or required competency proceedings, increasing likelihood of a different result	State argued that even if counsel erred, Garland would likely be reconvicted, so no relief warranted	Court credited habeas findings of serious, uninvestigated mental deficits and held those facts magnified prejudice from counsel’s waiver; relief affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Smith v. Francis, 253 Ga. 782 (state application of Strickland standard)
Smith v. Magnuson, 297 Ga. 210 (deference to habeas court findings; law applied de novo)
Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10 (deference to habeas factual findings with evidentiary support)
Humphrey v. Walker, 294 Ga. 855 (deference to habeas court credibility determinations)