Hambrick v. Brannen

The habeas court erred in finding that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at his probation revocation and re-adjudication hearing because the attorney failed to investigate his mental health history.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This is an appeal by the warden from the grant of defendant Randall Brannen’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court granted the writ on the basis that Brannen had ineffective assistance of counsel at his probation revocation and re-adjudication hearing due to what it characterized as counsel’s failure to investigate Brannen’s mental health condition. For the reasons which follow, we reverse the grant of the writ. On August 23, 2006, Brannen entered into a negotiated agreement wherein he entered pleas to family violence battery, terroristic threats, and reckless conduct, and he was sentenced under the First Offender Act, OCGA § 42-8-60 et seq., to probated sentences of twelve months for each of the two misdemeanors and five years to be served on probation for terroristic threats. A revocation petition was brought based upon Brannen’s commission of new felonies involving reported violence against his mother. Following a hearing in the matter, in August 2007, Brannen’s first offender probation was revoked, he was adjudicated guilty of the crimes for which he had been given first offender treatment, and he was sentenced to serve five years in prison with credit for time served on probation. In July 2008, Brannen filed the present application for writ of habeas corpus, listing four grounds for relief, including his claim of the ineffective assistance of counsel at the probation revocation and re-adjudication hearing. Subsequently three of the grounds were abandoned with only the ineffectiveness claim remaining.1

The habeas court granted relief based upon its determinations that the attorney representing Brannen at the probation revocation and re-adjudiction proceeding was deficient for failing to investigate Brannen’s mental health history,2 and that had counsel done so, Brannen “might have been found to be incompetent to stand trial, legally insane at the time of the crimes, or guilty but mentally ill”; the court concluded that Brannen had met his burden in showing a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Hambrick v. Brannen

The habeas court erred in finding that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at his probation revocation and re-adjudication hearing because the attorney failed to investigate his mental health history.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report