Rolland v. Martin
Decision Date | 30 October 2006 |
Docket Number | No. S06A1632.,S06A1632. |
Parties | ROLLAND v. MARTIN, Warden. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
James Rolland, Rome, pro se.
Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Paula Khristian Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Sarah L. Gerwig-Moore, Director, Criminal Appeals Clinic, Mercer Law School, Laura W. Harper, Mercer Criminal Appeals Clinic, Mercer University School of Law, Macon, amicus appellant.
After being convicted of several counts of burglary and other charges in 2003, James Rolland filed a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus in 2005. The sole ground of the petition reads as follows: "The petitioner asserts that his trial counsel . . . rendered ineffective assistance . . . by abandoning the case, without filing a motion for new trial and notice of appeal after being informed by petitioner." Rolland subsequently filed a brief with an attached letter from the clerk of the trial court stating that Rolland's trial attorney did not file a motion for new trial or notice of appeal.
At the habeas hearing, Rolland indicated that he would rely on his brief and exhibits and that he would conduct cross-examination "at the end." The habeas court found that he "declined to present any evidence at this time and is going to go with the petition as is filed." The Warden did not produce any evidence, but rather asked the habeas court to deny the petition based upon Rolland's failure to produce evidence in support thereof. The habeas court denied relief and immediately returned Rolland to the custody of a deputy.
The habeas court subsequently entered a written order, finding that there was not any evidence that trial counsel abandoned the case, that Rolland ever requested him to pursue an appeal, or that the failure to pursue an appeal was the result of any action or inaction of counsel. Rolland appeals pursuant to our grant of his application for certificate of probable cause.
State v. Jaramillo, 279 Ga. 691, 693(2), 620 S.E.2d 798 (2005). Thus, especially where the petitioner appears pro se, "the notice pleading prescribed by the CPA is appropriate." Mitchell v. Forrester, 247 Ga. 622, 623, 278 S.E.2d 368 (1981). Furthermore, regardless of the precise procedural context, a BEA Systems v. WebMethods, 265 Ga.App. 503, 504, 595 S.E.2d 87 (2004) (interlocutory injunction). Mountain Bound v. Alliant FoodService, 242 Ga.App. 557, 560(3), 530 S.E.2d 272 (2000) (summary judgment).
Rolland sufficiently verified his habeas petition by completing the required form. Heaton v. Lemacks, 266 Ga. 189(2), 466 S.E.2d 7 (1996). The only logical construction of the petition is that trial counsel failed to file a motion for new trial or notice of appeal after Rolland had informed him to proceed with an appeal. Otherwise the failure to do so would not constitute an abandonment of the case. This allegation of abandonment was not merely a conclusion, but was a specific factual averment within Rolland's personal knowledge. See Spires v. Relco, 165 Ga.App. 4, 5(2), 299 S.E.2d 58 (1983); Accredited Assoc. v. Shottenfeld, 162 Ga.App. 575, 576(1), 292 S.E.2d 417 (1982); Foskey v. Smith, 159 Ga.App. 163, 164, 283 S.E.2d 33 (1981). Harvard v. Walton, 243 Ga. 860, 862(2), 257 S.E.2d 280 (1979). Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477(II)(A), 120 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Taylor v. Williams
...Ann. §§ 9-11-1 to -133, "applies in habeas corpus proceedings with regard to questions of pleading and practice." Rolland v. Martin, 281 Ga. 190, 637 S.E.2d 23, 24 (2006) (quoting State v. Jaramillo, 279 Ga. 691, 620 S.E.2d 798, 800 (2005)). Under the CPA, "[a] civil action is commenced by ......
-
Sherman v. City of Atlanta
...1. The court had previously denied Woodham's request for a continuance for a different reason. 2. Sherman cites Rolland v. Martin, 281 Ga. 190, 637 S.E.2d 23 (2006), where we said that a “ ‘verified complaint serves as both pleading and evidence.’ ” Id. at 191, 637 S.E.2d 23 (citation omitt......
-
Sastre v. McDaniel
...the Sastres intend to return to Georgia upon the completion of Mr. Sastre's course of instruction in Tennessee. See Rolland v. Martin, 281 Ga. 190, 191, 637 S.E.2d 23 (2006) ("[R]egardless of the precise procedural context, a `verified complaint serves as both pleading and evidence.'" (cita......
-
Nguyen v. State, S07A0678.
...required to attach a copy of the legal process. The Civil Practice Act, applicable in habeas corpus proceedings (Rolland v. Martin, 281 Ga. 190, 191, 637 S.E.2d 23 (2006)), includes insufficiency of process as a defense that is waived if not asserted in a responsive pleading or by written m......