FOURTH D I VI SI ON

DI L LA RD, P. J.

, RI C KM A N and BROWN, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

A ugust 24, 2020



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A1 29 6 . M IZE v . THE STATE.

R I C K M A N , J u d g e.

Fo l l owi n g a ju ry t ri al

, Eri c M i ze was co n vi ct ed o f rap e, k i d n ap p i n g wi t h b o d i l y

inj ur y , ag g rav at ed s o d o m

y , an d ag g rav at ed as s au l t

. O n ap p eal

, M i ze co n t en d s t h at t h e

t ri al co u rt erred b y d en y i ng h i s m o t i o n fo r new t ri al b ecau s e h e was p reju di ced b y t h e

o v er 1 0 y ear d el ay i n t h e ap p el lat e p ro ces s

. Fo r t h e fo l l o w i n g reas o n s , we v acat e t h e

d en ial o f M i ze’ s m o t i o n fo r new t ri al an d rem an d t h e cas e fo r p ro ceed i n g s co n s i s t en t

wi t h t h i s o p i n i o n

.

In M ay 2 0 0 7

, M i ze was i n d i ct ed fo r o n e co u n t o f rap e, t wo co u n t s o f

k i d n a p p i n g wi t h b o d il y i n ju ry , o n e co u n t o f ag g rav at ed s o d o m y , o n e co u n t o f

ag g rav at ed b at t ery , an d o n e co un t o f ag g rav at ed as s au l t

. In Au gu s t 2 0 0 9

, M i ze was

co nvic ted o f rap e, ki d n ap p i n g wi t h b o d i l y i n ju ry , ag g rav at ed s od o m

y , an d ag g rav at edas s au l t

. 1 Les s t han a m on t h aft er h i s co nv i ct i o n s, Mi ze fi l ed a t i m el y m o t io n fo r n ew

t ri al

.

In Feb ru ary

2 0 1 9

, t h e t ri al co u rt i s su ed an o rd er s t at i n g t h at

,

[o ] n Sep t em

ber 1 6

, 20 0 9 [M i ze] fi l ed a M ot i o n fo r New Tri al i n th e

cap t io n ed m at t er. To d at e t h at M o t i o n h as n o t been h eard

, ei t h er b ecau s e

t h e p art i es were w ai t i n g fo r t r a n s c r i p t s , co u n s el d i d n o t s ch ed u l e a

h eari n g o r [M ] i z e ch o se n o t t o pu rs u e an y p o st -co nv i ct i o n act i o n

. W h at ev er t he reas o n fo r t h e d el ay , th e Mo ti o n rem ai n s i n a “ p en d i n g”

s t at u s an d n eed s t o b e res o l v ed

.

Th e o rd er s et b o t h a s ch ed u l i n g co n feren ce an d a d at e fo r a h eari n g o n M i ze’ s

m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al

. In Decem b er 2 0 1 9

, fo l l o wi n g a h eari ng , t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed

M i ze’ s m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al

.

M i ze co n ten d s t h a t t h e tri al co u rt erred by den y i n g h i s m ot i on fo r new t ri al

b ecau s e h e was p reju d i ced b y t h e o v er 1 0 y ear d el ay

i n t h e ap p el l at e p ro ces s

.

Ou r Su p rem e Co u rt

h as ad d res sed t he p ro p er res o l u t i o n o f cl ai m s as s ert i n g d ue p ro ces s

v i o l at i o n s b as ed o n i n ord i n at e ap p el l at e d el ay , an d d et erm i n ed t h at th e

1 M i ze was al s o fo u nd g u i l t y o f an ot h er co u n t o f ki d n ap p i ng wi t h b o di l y i n ju ry b u t t h at co n v i ct i on m erg ed wi t h h i s co n v ict i on o n t h e o t her co u n t o f k i dn ap p i n g wi th

b o d i l y i n ju ry fo r t he p urp o s es o f s en t en ci n g. A ft er t h e cl o s e o f t h e ev i d en ce, t h e t ri al

co u rt gran t ed a d irect ed v erd i ct o f acq u it tal fo r t h e on e o f co u n t ag g rav at ed b at t ery

.

2ap p ro p ri at e an al y si s i s ap p l i cat i o n o f t h e f o u r s p eed y t ri al fact ors s et

fo rt h i n B a r k

e r v

. Wi n go , [4 0 7 U. S. 5 1 4 (9 2 SCt 2 1 8 2

, 3 3 LE2 d 1 0 1 )

(1 9 7 2 )] wh i ch are t h e len g t h o f t h e d e l a y , t h e reas on fo r t h e d el ay , th e

d efen d an t ’ s as s ert i o n o f h i s ri g h t , an d p reju d i ce t o t h e d efen d an t

.

(Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t ted .) Jo n es v. St a t e , 3 2 2 Ga. Ap p

. 3 1 0

, 3 11 (7 4 4 SE2 d

8 3 0 ) (2 01 3 ). “ T h es e fact o rs are each t o b e b al an ced in an ex erci s e o f t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

d i s cret i o n , wh i ch we rev i ew fo r ab u se.” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted .) Id

. “ In

t h e Ba r k e r v

. W i ng o co n t ex t, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h as n o t ed t h at i t i s i m p erat i ve,

t h erefo re, t h at in s u ch cas es t h e t ri al co u rt en t er fi n d i n g s o f fact an d co n cl u s i o n s o f

l aw co n s is t en t wi t h Ba r

ker . Ab s en t s u ch fi n d i n g s , t h ere i s n o ex erci s e o f d i s cret i o n

fo r t h i s Co urt t o rev i ew.” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at io n o m i tt ed

. ) Id

.

Here, t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er l i s t s t h e Ba r ker fact o rs an d fi n d s th at t h e l en g th o f

t h e del ay was ex ces s iv e, t h at t h e reas o n fo r del ay was n o t cl ear, an d t h at “ t h ere i s n o

ev i d en ce [M i ze] d i d m

u ch i f an y t h i n g t o as s ert h i s ap p el l at e ri g h t s d u ri n g t he t en y ear

d el ay .” As t o t h e preju d ice p ro n g , t h e t ri al co u rt s t at ed th at “ [M i ze] has p ro vi d ed n o

ev i d en ce o f p reju d i ce res ul ti n g fro m t h e d el ay

. ” Th e t ri al co u r t c o n cl u d ed t h at

“ [c] o n si d eri ng al l fo u r fact o rs to g et h er, it do es n o t ap p ear t h at [M i ze’ s ] d u e p ro ces s

ri gh t s were v i o l at ed [.] ”

3Th e t ri al co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g th at M i ze p ro v i d ed n o ev id en ce o f p reju d i ce res u l t i n g

fro m t he d el ay i s n o t s u p p o r t e d b y t h e reco rd

. Mi ze p res en t ed ev i d en ce b efo re t h e

t ri al co u rt th at h is t ri al co u n s el h ad b een s u s p en ded

, di s b arred

, an d t hen di ed d u ri n g

t h e d el ay i n h eari n g h i s m o t i o n f o r n ew t ri al

. Th e t ri al co u rt d id n o t ad d res s t h i s

ev i d en ce at al l

, b u t n o t ed wh en d en y i n g M i ze’ s i n effect i v e as s i s t a n c e o f co u n s el

cl ai m s t h at “ [w] i t h o u t t h e b en efi t o f t ri al co un s el ’ s t es t i m o ny co ncern i n g hi s act i on s

d u ri n g hi s rep res en t at i o n o f [M i ze]

, i t i s v ery d i ffi cu l t fo r t h [e] p res u m pt i o n [t h at

co u ns el ’ s rep res en t at io n was wi t h in t h e w i de ran g e o f reas on ab l e p ro fes s i o n al

as s i s tan ce] t o b e o v erco m e.” W e can n o t reco n ci l e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g th at M i ze

p res en t ed n o ev i d en ce t o s u p p o r t hi s ap p el l at e d el ay cl ai m wi t h t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g t h at he was s o m ewh at harm ed b y t h e l ack o f t es t i m o n y b y h i s t ri al

co u ns el wh en an al y zi n g h i s i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el cl ai m

.

“ [T] h e reco rd cl earl y s h ows t h at [M ize] d i d at t em p t t o d em o n s t rat e p reju d i ce,

an d t h e t ri al co u rt ab u s ed i t s d is cret i o n b y bas i n g i t s ru li n g i n p art o n a fi n d i n g t h at

h e d i d no t .” Jo n es , 3 22 Ga. Ap p

. a t 3 1 2

. 2 Acco rd i ng l y , w e v acat e t he t ri al co urt ’ s

2 W e are m ak i n g no co m

m en t on wh et h er M i ze act u al l y s u ffered preju d i ce fro m

t h e ap p el l at e d el ay , w e are o n ly reco g n i zi n g th at t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fi n di n g th at h e fai l ed

t o p res en t s p eci fi c ev i d en ce o f p reju d i ce was b el ied b y t he reco rd

.

4o rd er d en y in g M i ze’ s m ot i o n fo r n ew t ri al an d rem an d t h is cas e fo r t h e t ri al co u rt to

reco n s i d er t h e Ba r

ker fact o rs . See i d

.

Ju d g men t va ca t ed ; ca s e r ema n d

ed

. Di l l a rd

, P. J., a n d Br o wn , J., co n cu r

.

5