Williams v. Moody

The case was remanded for the habeas court to make an analysis as to whether appellate counsel's decision not to raise an ineffectiveness of counsel claim was an unreasonable one, which only an incompetent attorney would adopt.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellee Jammie K. Moody was convicted of armed robbery and aggravated battery in Coffee County and sentenced to a twenty-year term of imprisonment in 2002. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion. Moody v. State , 271 Ga. App. XXV 2005. Moody filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Chatham County where he asserted he was not afforded his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. See Evitts v. Lucey , 469 U.S. 387 105 SC 830, 83 LE2d 821 1985; McAuliffe v. Rutledge , 231 Ga. 745 204 SE2d 141 1974.1 Citing our decisions in Garland v. State , 283 Ga. 201, 203 657 SE2d 842 2008, and Milliken v. Stewart , 276 Ga. 712 583 SE2d 30 2003, the habeas court granted relief in the form of a new trial, on the ground that Moody received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal

because Moody was not afforded his constitutional right to “conflict-free” appellate representation. The habeas court’s determination was based on several legal theories: that Moody’s ability to assert ineffective assistance of trial counsel was waived if there had been an unexercised opportunity to assert the claim prior to appeal, and that Moody’s right to conflict-free appellate counsel was infringed when trial counsel took on the role of appellate counsel after Moody had filed a motion in which he stated his belief that his conviction was the result of trial counsel’s ineffective assistance.2 Warden Thalrone Williams timely filed a direct appeal in this Court from the habeas court’s grant of relief see OCGA § 9-14-52c, and we examine the legal theories employed by the habeas court.

Williams v. Moody

The case was remanded for the habeas court to make an analysis as to whether appellate counsel's decision not to raise an ineffectiveness of counsel claim was an unreasonable one, which only an incompetent attorney would adopt.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report