White v. State, 302 Ga. 315

Background

White participated in a 2012 home invasion that resulted in two deaths and was indicted on multiple counts including malice and felony murder; the State initially sought the death penalty.
White entered negotiated guilty pleas on September 18, 2015, and the trial court entered judgments and sentences (life with parole plus consecutive years); other charges were nolle prossed.
On October 15 and November 5, 2015, while represented by counsel, White submitted pro se writings seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas alleging invalid pleas, ineffective assistance, and medication-induced impairment.
Defense counsel (Vigneri and Gilbert) moved to withdraw; the GPDC appointed substitute counsel Morrison, who later filed an amended motion to withdraw on February 23, 2016.
The trial court dismissed White’s pro se motions as void because he was represented when he filed them; Morrison’s amended motion was filed after the term in which the pleas and sentences were entered, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant withdrawal.
White appealed; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding the pro se filings were unauthorized while represented and the substitute counsel’s later motion could not revive those earlier filings or restore the trial court’s jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	White's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant is "unrepresented" after entry of sentence such that pro se post-plea motions filed during the same term are effective	White argued representation ends at sentencing (or the rule interpreted narrowly), allowing him to file pro se motions to withdraw pleas	The State argued White remained represented by counsel through the term; pro se filings while represented are void	Court held counsel’s representation continues through the term of court in which judgment was entered; pro se filings while represented are nullities
Whether an amended motion filed by substitute counsel relates back to validate earlier pro se filings	White argued Morrison’s Feb. 23 amended motion related back to the October/November pro se filings	The State argued relation-back does not apply to void pro se filings in the criminal context	Court held relation-back in civil pleadings does not validate prior void pro se filings; amended motion did not relate back
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant withdrawal after the term ended	White contended the court could consider the substituted counsel’s motion	State contended the court lacked jurisdiction after the term expired	Court held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to allow plea withdrawal after the term in which the plea and sentence were entered
Whether counsel’s withdrawal motion by Vigneri and Gilbert without first filing a motion to withdraw pleas or staying proceedings constituted ineffective assistance	White argued counsel’s conduct was ineffective and prejudiced his right to challenge the pleas	State noted the ineffective-assistance claim was not raised below and thus not preserved	Court declined to address ineffectiveness on appeal because it was not raised or ruled on in the trial court

Key Cases Cited

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) (importance of counsel’s guiding hand)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
Grace v. State, 295 Ga. 657 (2014) (post-judgment counsel duties and appeal period)
Stephens v. State, 291 Ga. 837 (2012) (counsel duties extend post-judgment during appeal window)
Hipp v. State, 293 Ga. 415 (2013) (trial court plenary power during term to amend orders not founded on verdicts)
Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357 (2014) (formal withdrawal requires court order; otherwise counsel remains of record)
Cotton v. State, 279 Ga. 358 (2005) (pro se filings by represented criminal defendants are unauthorized)
Williams v. Moody, 287 Ga. 665 (2010) (same principle that pro se post-conviction filings while represented are void)
Rubiani v. State, 279 Ga. 299 (2005) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to allow withdrawal of plea after term expires)