RHODES v. THE STATE.
S14A1522
Supreme Court of Georgia
DECIDED JANUARY 20, 2015.
(768 SE2d 445)
THOMPSON, Chief Justice.
Court to repeat the proposition that ” [a] mutually exclusive verdict results when the jury finds that the defendant acted with both criminal intent and criminal negligence at the same instant regarding the same victim involving the same act. ”
Since the Court does so, however, I again note the serious doubts that I, joined by Justice Blackwell, have recently expressed about the legal and logical basis of that proposition, which this Court first endorsed in Jackson v. State, 276 Ga. 408 (577 SE2d 570) (2003). See State v. Owens, 296 Ga. 205, 213 (766 SE2d 66) (2014) (Nahmias, J., concurring); Allaben v. State, 294 Ga. 315, 322-325 (751 SE2d 802) (2013) (Nahmias, J., concurring). See also Jackson, 276 Ga. at 416-418 (Carley, J., dissenting). I also note that our Court granted a petition of certiorari last month in State v. Springer, Case No. S14G1539, to decide whether Jackson and its progeny should be overruled.
I am authorized to state that Justice Blackwell joins in this concurrence.
DECIDED JANUARY 20, 2015.
Robert L. Persse, for appellant.
Richard A. Mallard, District Attorney, Benjamin T. Edwards, Assistant
THOMPSON, Chief Justice.
Appellant Ron Rhodes appeals from the trial court‘s order denying multiple motions he filed following entry of his guilty plea. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
On March 6, 2000, appellant, who had been indicted in connection with the shooting death of a Bibb County convenience store clerk, pled guilty but mentally retarded to charges of malice murder and armed robbery in exchange for the State‘s agreement not to pursue the death penalty against him. On March 14, 2000, the trial court sentenced appellant on these charges to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment. More than thirteen years later, in July 2013 and January 2014, appellant filed numerous motions in the trial court seeking, among other things, to withdraw his guilty plea, an out-of-time appeal, appointment of counsel, and reversal of his convictions. The trial court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, denied all of appellant‘s motions, and appellant filed this direct appeal. See Simmons v. State, 276 Ga. 525, 525, n. 2 (579 SE2d 735) (2003) (denial of motion for out-of-time appeal is directly appealable where conviction has not been subject of direct appeal).
1. Regardless of the nomenclature used, the majority of appellant‘s motions seek either to withdraw his guilty plea or to substantively challenge his convictions through an out-of-time appeal.1 A trial court‘s authority to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea ends after expiration of the term of court during which a plea is entered, however, and appellant‘s motion, filed thirteen years after entry of his plea, was filed too late to give the trial court any authority to allow the withdrawal of appellant‘s guilty plea.2 See Brown v. State, 280 Ga. 658, 658 (631 SE2d 687) (2006). See also Dupree v. State, 279 Ga. 613 (619 SE2d 608) (2005). Accordingly, the trial court‘s denial of appellant‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and all other motions in which he sought the withdrawal of his plea are affirmed. It follows that appellant was not entitled to the appointment of counsel to assist with his untimely filed motion. See Pierce v. State, 289 Ga. 893, 894 (717 SE2d 202) (2011).
2. With regard to appellant‘s requests for an out-of-time appeal, appellant asserts he is entitled to an out-of-time appeal both because his guilty plea was not made freely and voluntarily and because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We agree with the trial court‘s denial of these motions.
As recently stated by this Court, an out-of-time appeal is intended to address the constitutional concerns that arise when a defendant is denied his first appeal because the counsel to which he was constitutionally entitled rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of his right to appeal and counsel‘s deficiency resulted in prejudice. See Stephens v. State, 291 Ga. 837, 837-838 (733 SE2d 266) (2012). Thus, an out-of-time appeal is available when a direct appeal was not taken due to ineffective assistance of counsel. See id. When a conviction is entered based on a plea of guilty, a direct appeal is available only “if the issue on appeal can be resolved by reference to facts on the record.” Grantham v. State, 267 Ga. 635, 635 (481 SE2d 219) (1997). “Thus, if the issues that the defendant seeks to appeal cannot be resolved from the record, he had no right to file a direct appeal, and therefore he has no right to file an out-of-time appeal. [Cit.]” Hagan v. State, 294 Ga. 716, 718 (755 SE2d 734) (2014). If the issues a defendant wishes to raise in an out-of-time appeal can be resolved against him on the face of the record, so that even a timely appeal would have been unsuccessful, “then plea counsel‘s failure to advise the defendant to file such an appeal was not professionally deficient, nor did any prejudice result.” Stephens, supra at 839, quoting Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391, 403, n. 5 (697 SE2d 177) (2010).
(a) Appellant‘s claim that his guilty plea was not freely entered cannot be resolved on the face of the record. Appellant alleges his plea was involuntary because plea counsel threatened him, told him what to say, and promised him he would be going home to see his mother. Resolution of this issue requires evidence of the conversations between
(b) Similarly, appellant‘s claim that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to explain the State‘s plea offer, failing to investigate, and failing to obtain the services of a mental health expert for sentencing purposes cannot be decided by reference to the record. Although the trial court correctly recognized and the record reflects that appellant was evaluated by two experts who offered their opinions regarding both appellant‘s competency to stand trial and his mental capacity at the time of the crimes, appellant in this claim alleges counsel should have hired an additional expert to present mitigating evidence related to his mental health history, including the fact that he had suffered a previous head injury. Resolution of this issue, like those considered above, requires evidence of discussions between appellant and plea counsel and/or evidence of counsel‘s reasons for electing not to hire an additional expert. Accordingly, these allegations of ineffective assistance are not proper grounds for an out-of-time appeal and must be pursued within a properly filed petition for habeas corpus. Gibson v. State, 290 Ga. 516 (2) (b) (722 SE2d 741) (2012).
(c) We do find one ground of ineffective assistance raised that can be decided by reference to the record, although adversely to appellant. Appellant claims plea counsel was ineffective by failing to object to comments made by the trial judge during the plea hearing, comments which he argues violated
3. Based on our determination that appellant was not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea or to an out-of-time appeal, we find no error in the trial court‘s denial of appellant‘s remaining motions in which he raised or sought evidence to support substantive challenges to his convictions.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
DECIDED JANUARY 20, 2015.
Ron C. Rhodes, pro se.
K. David Cooke, Jr., District Attorney, Dorothy V. Hull, Assistant District Attorney, Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ryan A. Kolb, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.