Ryan v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 18 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. S91A0952,S91A0952 |
| Citation | 261 Ga. 661,409 S.E.2d 507 |
| Parties | RYAN v. THOMAS, Warden. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Steve Ryan, pro se.
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., C.A. Benjamin Woolf, Atty., State Law Dept., Atlanta, for Thomas.
Petitioner Steve Ryan was convicted of numerous crimes including armed robbery and kidnapping. At trial he was represented by a public defender from the Fulton County Public Defender's Office (Public Defender's Office). His motion for new trial was filed by a second public defender from the Public Defender's Office, and a third attorney from this office represented him on direct appeal.
Following the affirmance of his appeal, Ryan v. State, 191 Ga.App. 477, 382 S.E.2d 196 (1989), Ryan filed a pro se habeas corpus petition, maintaining that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. At the hearing on this petition, Ryan's appellate counsel testified that prior to filing Ryan's appeal, he evaluated potential claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but determined that any such claims would be without merit. The habeas court concluded that since the ineffective assistance claim was not raised on direct appeal, it was procedurally barred under Black v. Hardin, 255 Ga. 239, 336 S.E.2d 754 (1985).
We granted Ryan's application for probable cause to determine whether, as a matter of law, a pro se petitioner is procedurally barred from raising the issue of ineffective assistance where this issue is not raised on direct appeal, and both trial and appellate counsel are members of the same public defender's office.
In White v. Kelso, 261 Ga. 32, 401 S.E.2d 733 (1991), we were faced with a similar issue. In that case one attorney was appointed by the court to represent the petitioner at trial. A second attorney, not professionally related to the first, was appointed to represent the petitioner on appeal. Following the affirmance of his conviction, the petitioner filed a pro se habeas petition in which he alleged that his trial counsel had been ineffective. We noted that ineffective assistance claims are often entertained for the first time on habeas corpus where a petitioner has had only one attorney throughout his legal proceedings because "an attorney cannot reasonably be expected to assert or argue his or her own ineffectiveness." 261 Ga. 32, 401 S.E.2d 733. However, we held that where there is new counsel appointed or retained, he must raise the ineffectiveness of previous counsel at the first possible instance in the legal proceedings. Thus, in White, the claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel was waived because appellate counsel had failed to raise it.
Were we to look no further than the rule set out in White, we would agree that Ryan's claim is procedurally barred because the second attorney from the Public Defender's Office who represented Ryan on motion for new trial failed to raise an ineffective assistance claim. However, in this case, unlike in White, all three attorneys involved in the various...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chatman v. Mancill, No. S05A1862.
...delay in the post-trial handling of Mancill's appeal because of "the same policy reason" behind this Court's opinion in Ryan v. Thomas, 261 Ga. 661, 409 S.E.2d 507 (1991). In Ryan, we recognized that one member of a public defender's office could not reasonably be expected to assert or argu......
-
Shelton v. State
...Opinion 10–1, 293 Ga. at 399 (1), 744 S.E.2d 798.35 Delevan , 345 Ga. App. at 52 (2), 811 S.E.2d 71 ; accord Ryan v. Thomas , 261 Ga. 661, 662, 409 S.E.2d 507 (1991) ; see Kennebrew v. State , 267 Ga. 400, 402 (2), 480 S.E.2d 1 (1996) ("[C]ounsel, whether retained or appointed, cannot reaso......
-
Fuston, Petway & French, LLP v. Water Works Bd. of Birmingham
...between a lawyer and client is a special one of trust that entitles the client to the attorney's fidelity. See Ryan v. Thomas, 261 Ga. 661, 662, 409 S.E.2d 507 (1991) ; Freeman v. Bigham, 65 Ga. 580, 589 (1880). This ‘unique’ relationship is ‘founded in principle upon the elements of trust ......
-
Hall v. Jackson
...properly assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel against another member of his own office. See, e.g., Ryan v. Thomas , 261 Ga. 661, 661, 409 S.E.2d 507 (1991). See also Davis v. Turpin , 273 Ga. 244, 248, 539 S.E.2d 129 (2000) ("Counsel prosecuting an ineffective assistance clai......
-
Legal Ethics - J. Randolph Evans and Anthony W. Morris
...133. Id. at 353-54, 444 S.E.2d at 317. 134. The attorney-client relationship has long been one described as trust. See Ryan v. Thomas, 261 Ga. 661, 662, 409 S.E.2d 507, 507 (1991); Freeman v. Bigham, 65 Ga. 580, 589 (1880). This "unique" relationship is "founded in principle upon the elemen......
-
Notices
...trial lawyer could not represent appellant on appeal where appellant had an ineffective assistance of counsel claim); Ryan v. Thomas, 261 Ga. 661 (409 SE2d 507) (1991) (for the purpose of raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, "attorneys in a public defender's office are to b......
-
Notices
...trial lawyer could not represent appellant on appeal where appellant had an ineffective assistance of counsel claim); Ryan v. Thomas, 261 Ga. 661 (409 SE2d 507) (1991) (for the purpose of raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, "attorneys in a public defender's office are to b......