In January 1991, a jury found Eddie Lee Carroll guilty of possession of cocaine and obstruction of a police officer. Carroll was sentenced to 10 years probation on the drug charge, and 12 months probation on the obstruction charge, to be served concurrently. In August 1991, the balance of his probated sentence was revoked because he violated the terms of his probation. He was paroled in 1994, then convicted of a separate drug offense. The prior offenses were used in aggravation of the latest sentence, and the court sentenced Carroll to 30 years in prison. In April 2004, Carroll moved for an out-of-time appeal, asserting that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in 1991 in that his attorney failed to advise him that he had the right to challenge the validity of the search and seizure,1 and that counsel failed to inform him that he had the right to appeal, to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, and to receive a free copy of the trial transcript. Carroll also claimed that the trial court erred in not advising him of his right to appeal, to receive free legal assistance on appeal, and to obtain a free transcript of the proceedings.
At a hearing on the motion, the court asked Carroll, “You say you were not advised of your right to appeal” Carroll replied, “I don’t know.” According to the prosecutor, the attorney who represented Carroll at trial who was not present at the hearing, had told the prosecutor that it was his usual practice to advise clients of their right to appeal, but that defense counsel “couldn’t say one way or the other” whether Carroll had been advised of his appeal rights. Carroll informed the court that he filed a habeas corpus petition regarding the 30-year sentence, and that the habeas proceeding was still pending. The trial court denied the motion for an out-of-time appeal.
