Richards v. State
Decision Date | 13 May 2002 |
Docket Number | No. S02A0435.,S02A0435. |
Citation | 275 Ga. 190,563 S.E.2d 856 |
Parties | RICHARDS v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William C. Richards, pro se.
Ralph M. Walke, Dist. Atty., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Jill M. Zubler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant William Clarence Richards was convicted of malice murder in 1992, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by this Court in 1993. Richards v. State, 263 Ga. 65, 428 S.E.2d 84 (1993). In August 2001, appellant, acting pro se, filed a motion for out-of-time appeal in the superior court in which his conviction was obtained. In the motion, appellant sought an evidentiary hearing and a judicial ruling on his claim that he was denied his constitutionally-guaranteed right to the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in conjunction with his 1992 murder conviction. After noting that this Court had reviewed appellant's conviction on direct appeal in 1993, that an out-of-time appeal is appropriate when the defendant has not had a direct appeal, and that appellant should file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the county of his incarceration, the trial court denied the motion for out-of-time appeal. This direct appeal followed.
"It is the duty of this court to raise the question of its jurisdiction in all cases in which there may be any doubt as to the existence of such jurisdiction." Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872(1), 452 S.E.2d 756 (1995). We hold that there is no right to directly appeal the denial of a motion for out-of-time appeal filed by a criminal defendant whose conviction has been affirmed on direct appeal. An out-of-time appeal is a judicial creation that serves as "`the remedy for [a] frustrated right of appeal.'" Id. at 875(2), 452 S.E.2d 756. It is the means by which a criminal defendant who lost his right to direct appeal of his criminal conviction due to counsel's negligence, ignorance, or misinterpretation of the law may gain that appellate review. Id. The denial of a motion for out-of-time appeal is directly appealable when the criminal conviction at issue has not undergone appellate review. Id.; Butts v. State, 244 Ga.App. 366, 536 S.E.2d 154 (2000); Barnes v. State, 243 Ga.App. 703, 534 S.E.2d 440 (2000). Due to the very nature of an out-of-time appeal, it is not a remedy available to a criminal defendant whose conviction has been reviewed by an appellate court on direct appeal since that defendant is not entitled to a second direct appeal from his judgment of conviction. Jackson v. State, 273 Ga. 320, 540 S.E.2d 612 (2001). See also Cox v. Hillyer, 65 Ga. 57(1) (1880) ( ); Grant v. State, 159 Ga.App. 2, 3, 282 S.E.2d 668 (1981). Since an out-of-time appeal is not available to one whose conviction has been affirmed on direct appeal, the denial of a motion for out-of-time appeal filed by such a defendant is not subject to direct appeal to the appellate courts. Jackson v. State, supra.1 Accordingly, appellant's direct appeal from the denial of his motion for out-of-time appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
All the Justices concur.
1. A criminal defendant who has had a conviction affirmed on direct appeal may gain further appellate review of the judgment of conviction by filing an extraordinary motion for new trial or a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Grant v. State, supr...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mims v. State, S16A0542
...In those circumstances, the defendant is not entitled to appeal from the refusal of an out-of-time appeal. See Richards v. State, 275 Ga. 190, 191, 563 S.E.2d 856 (2002) (“Since an out-of-time appeal is not available to one whose conviction has been affirmed on direct appeal, the denial of ......
-
Gable v. State
...a defendant has no constitutional right to counsel to pursue a post-conviction extraordinary motion for new trial); Richards v. State, 275 Ga. 190, 191, 563 S.E.2d 856 (2002) (holding that “an out-of-time appeal is not available to one whose conviction has been affirmed on direct appeal”); ......
-
Murphy v. Murphy
... ... Court of Appeals Rule 25(c)(1). As to each enumeration of error, an appellant is to specify how the error was preserved and to state concisely the applicable standard of review. Court of Appeals Rule 25(a). Briefs and enumerations of error that do not conform to those requirements ... ...
-
Thurman v. McLaughlin, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-233 (MTT)
...the Petitioner's position may also toll the limitations period. See Moore, 321 F.3d at 1380 (citations omitted); Richards v. State, 275 Ga. 190, 191, 563 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2002) ("The denial of a motion for out-of-time appeal is directly appealable when the criminal conviction at issue has n......
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Gregory R. Miller
...at 387. 118. 275 Ga. 188, 563 S.E.2d 854 (2002). 119. Id. at 188, 563 S.E.2d at 855. 120. Id. at 188-89, 563 S.E.2d at 855. 121. Id., 563 S.E.2d at 856. 122. Id., 563 S.E.2d at 855-56. 123. Id. at 190, 563 S.E.2d at 856. 124. 275 Ga. 46, 561 S.E.2d 816 (2002). 125. Id. at 46, 561 S.E.2d at ......