Tompkins v. Hall, 291 Ga. 224

Hall was convicted in 2002 for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and trafficking in cocaine; he was tried in absentia as a fugitive from justice.
At trial Hall was represented by three attorneys; after trial, initial defense filed a general motion for new trial, Hall later replaced counsel, and an amended motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance was filed by his new attorney.
The trial court dismissed the new trial motion because Hall remained a fugitive; Hall pursued appellate remedies, including a notice of appeal and a subsequent motion to recuse the trial judge, which were resolved unfavorably.
Hall filed a habeas corpus petition in 2007 asserting ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and Crawford v. Washington errors; the habeas court addressed procedural default and ultimately granted relief on grounds not raised by Hall, then reversed in part.
The appellate court held Hall failed to show cause and prejudice to overcome procedural default, and that he remained a fugitive undermining any potential prejudice, leading to reversal of habeas relief.
The supreme court reversed the habeas court, holding that Hall did not overcome the default and that relief could not be granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hall defaulted his ineffective assistance claims	Hall asserts cause to overcome default due to ineffective assistance.	State contends Hall did not timely raise specific ineffective-assistance claims and remained a fugitive.	Default not overcome; claims waived.
Whether cause and prejudice can overcome the procedural bar for ineffective assistance claims	Hall argues cause and actual prejudice exist from trial counsel's performance.	State argues no proper showing of prejudice regardless of cause.	Cause and prejudice cannot overcome the bar for these claims.
If appellate counsel's performance is at issue, does it excuse default	Hall contends Sheffield's handling could excuse default.	State argues no ineffective-assistance by appellate counsel was shown for timely raising claims.	No basis shown for appellate-counsel ineffectiveness to excuse default.
Did Hall demonstrate actual prejudice to prevail on ineffective-assistance grounds	There was prejudice because trial counsel performed ineffectively.	Even with errors, Hall's fugitive status and other issues negate prejudice.	Prejudice not established; relief inappropriate.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standards for ineffective assistance)
Glover v. State, 266 Ga. 183 (Ga. 1996) (procedural-default framework and cause/prejudice analysis)
Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820 (Ga. 1997) (recognizes procedural bar and prejudice considerations)
Battles v. Chapman, 269 Ga. 702 (Ga. 1998) (ineffective-assistance standards and prejudice discussion)
Anderson v. State, 285 Ga. 496 (Ga. 2009) (prescribes reasonableness standard for counsel conduct)
Morgan v. State, 275 Ga. 222 (Ga. 2002) (prescribes burden and prejudice analysis for claims)
Hardeman v. State, 281 Ga. 220 (Ga. 2006) (prejudice to overturn procedural default under Strickland framework)
Hall v. State, 271 Ga. App. 302 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (fugitive status affecting appellate relief)
Walker v. Hagins, 290 Ga. 512 (Ga. 2012) (prejudice standard for appellate-ineffective-assistance claims)
Byrd v. Ricketts, 233 Ga. 779 (Ga. 1975) (fugitive-from-justice considerations and trial-allowable conduct)