Crowder v. State

Defense counsel misstated the law when he advised the defendant that he would serve probably 20 years or in excess of 20 years when defendant actually was subject to serve a minimum of 30 years before being considered for parole.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following the shooting death of his estranged wife on January 16, 2008, appellant Darrell Anthony Crowder was indicted on seventeen separate counts relating to the crime, including charges of malice murder, felony murder, burglary, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm, and cruelty to children. Prior to jury selection, Crowder pled guilty to one count of malice murder and one count of possession of a firearm and, based on that plea, the trial court sentenced him to life in prison plus five years. A nolle prosequi was entered as to the remaining counts. The plea hearing transcript reflects that appellant entered the plea in accordance with Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 89 SC 1709, 23 LE2d 274 1969.

Shortly after being sentenced, appellant moved to withdraw his guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his trial counsel misinformed him about his eligibility for parole. Specifically, appellant contends that his trial attorney told him he was unaffected by the newly amended OCGA § 17-10-6.1c1 and that he would not have to serve a full thirty years before being eligible for parole. Appellant later learned his life sentence for murder required that he serve a mandatory minimum of thirty years before he could be eligible for parole. Appellant contends had he known he would be required to serve thirty years before being eligible for parole, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. The trial court denied appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, finding that counsel had not been deficient and that appellant had suffered no prejudice. This appeal ensued.

Crowder v. State

Defense counsel misstated the law when he advised the defendant that he would serve probably 20 years or in excess of 20 years when defendant actually was subject to serve a minimum of 30 years before being considered for parole.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report