McAuliffe v. Rutledge, 28459
| Decision Date | 18 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28459,28459 |
| Citation | 204 S.E.2d 141,231 Ga. 745 |
| Parties | Andrew J. McAULIFFE v. Jack T. RUTLEDGE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Grogan, Jones & Layfield, John C. Swearingen, Jr., Columbus, for appellant.
E. Mullins Whisnant, Dist. Atty., William J. Smith, Columbus, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court in a habeas corpus case.
On the prior appearance of this case in this court, McAuliffe v. Rutledge, 231 Ga. 1, 200 S.E.2d 100, this court passed on certain enumerations of error from a habeas corpus hearing in which the appellant was remanded to the custody of the sheriff, and then raised the question of 'whether the appellant has been denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal resulting in a denial of his right of appeal on the merits of the criminal case.' We directed the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the question.
Upon remand the trial court conducted such an evidentiary hearing and a transcript thereof is included in the record in the present appeal. The record shows without dispute that the attorney who represented the petitioner at his trial and at every stage thereafter, including this appeal, was retained by the petitioner; has practiced law in the State of Georgia since 1969; has participated in several hundred criminal cases during such time; is considered highly competent by the court and district attorney; and that he handles approximately 30 per cent of the criminal trials conducted in that court. On the basis of such evidence the trial court concluded that the appellant was at all times represented by competent and diligent counsel, which holding is enumerated as error. Held:
Though the evidence in this record supports a conclusion that appellant's attorney is experienced in the criminal field and bears a good reputation generally, we must look to his actions in this particular matter to determine whether or not he rendered effective assistance to this particular client upon appeal after conviction. Based on his failure to obtain a timely extension of time for filing the transcript, the appeal on motion of the district attorney was dismissed by the trial court. That ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in McAuliffe v. State, 127 Ga.App. 249, 193 S.E.2d 219. As pointed out by the Court of Appeals in that case, the attorney was under the 'duty to make a timely application as the statute requires.' Failure to perform...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schoicket v. State
..., 289 Ga. 210, 211, 710 S.E.2d 141 (2011).30 See Dos Santos , 307 Ga. at 157-159 (5), 834 S.E.2d 733.31 See McAuliffe v. Rutledge , 231 Ga. 745, 746, 204 S.E.2d 141 (1974) ; McAuliffe v. Rutledge , 231 Ga. 1, 2-3, 200 S.E.2d 100 (1973).32 See Dos Santos , 307 Ga. at 154-155 (3), 834 S.E.2d ......
-
Collier v. State, S19A0658
...in the affirmative, then an appeal may be filed and prosecuted with benefit of counsel even at this late date"); McAuliffe v. Rutledge , 231 Ga. 745, 746, 204 S.E.2d 141 (1974) (Upon finding that counsel’s ineffective assistance deprived the defendant of his appeal of right, this Court reve......
-
Cook v. State
...an appeal may be filed and prosecuted with benefit of counsel even at this late date ") (emphasis supplied); McAuliffe v. Rutledge , 231 Ga. 745, 746, 204 S.E.2d 141 (1974) (reversing the judgment of the habeas court because the petitioner "was indeed denied effective assistance of counsel ......
-
Rowland v. State
...criminal defendant's direct appeal from his conviction raises constitutional questions. Twenty years ago, in McAuliffe v. Rutledge, 231 Ga. 745, 204 S.E.2d 141 (1974), this court determined that a criminal defendant was entitled to effective assistance of counsel on appeal. An attorney who ......