WHOLE COURT

N O T IC E : M otions for re c ons i de r a tion m us t be

phy s ic a lly re ce iv e d in our cle r k’s off i c 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

Nov em ber 16, 2016



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 6 A1 36 2 , A1 6 A1 3 63 . RAHEEM v . THE STATE.

B A R N E S , Pres i d i n g J ud g e.

In t h es e co m

p an i on ap p eal s

, t h e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed Han eef Ab d u l Rah eem ’ s

m o ti o n s fo r o u t-o f-t i m e ap p eal s o f h i s 1 9 8 1 co n vi ct io n fo r m o t o r v eh i cl e t h eft an d h i s

1 9 8 2 b u rg l ary co nv ict i o n

. Fo ll owi n g o u r rev i ew an d fi n d i n g t h at t h e reco rd d o es n ot

es t ab l i s h t h at h e was fu l ly ad v is ed o f h i s ri g ht s u nd er Bo yki n v. Al a b a ma

, 3 9 5 U. S.

2 3 8 , 2 4 3 -2 4 4 (8 9 SCt 1 70 9 , 2 3 LE2 d 2 7 4 ) (1 9 69 ), we rev ers e t h e co n v ict i o n s

.

In Ra h eem v. S t a te

, 3 33 Ga. Ap p

. 8 2 1 ( 7 7 7 S E 2 d 4 9 6 ) (2 0 1 5) ( Ra h eem I ),

Rah eem ap p eal ed fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f h i s m o t io n fo r o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal s

o f h is 1 9 8 2 co n v i ct i o n fo r b u rg l ary

, 1 9 8 1 co n vi ct i o n f o r m o t o r-v eh i cl e t heft

, an d

1 9 8 5 co n v i ct i o n fo r arm ed ro bb ery

. Th e rel ev an t fact s as p res en t ed i n R a h eem I

es t ab l i s h t h at

[i ] n 1 9 8 1

, Rah eem p l ead ed g u i l t y t o m o t o r-v eh i cl e t h eft a nd hi t -an d-ru n

.

Th e n ex t y ear, h e p lead ed g u i l t y t o b u rg l ary

, an d i n 1 9 8 5

, t o a r m ed

ro b b ery

. Dec a d e s l a t e r, i n 2 0 1 3

, Rah eem fi l ed a p ro s e m ot i o n fo r an

o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal fro m al l o f t h es e co n v ict i on s

, arg u i n g t h at h i s g u i l t y

p l e as were i n vo lu n t ary becau s e, in each p l ea p ro ceed in g

, h e w a s n o tad v i sed o f h i s ri g h t t o a ju ry t ri al

, h is ri g h t t o co n fro n t th e wi t n es ses

ag ai ns t h i m

, or h i s ri gh t ag ai n s t s el f-i ncri m in a t i o n

. Rah eem fu rt h er

arg u ed t h at t h e es s en t i al el em en t s o f each of h i s o ffen s es were n o t

ex p l ai n ed t o h im pri or t o en t eri n g hi s g u i l t y p l eas

. . . . Rah eem

co n t en d [ed ] t h at h e i s en t i t l ed t o an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal fro m each

co n v i ct i o n b ecau s e hi s gu i l t y p leas were n o t k n o wi n g an d v o l u n tary an d

n ei t h er t h e t ri al co u rt n o r h i s t r i a l co u n sel ad v i s ed hi m o f h i s li m i ted

ap p el l at e ri g h t s. Th e St at e m o v ed to d i s m i ss Rah eem ’ s m o t i o n

, arg u i n g

t h at

, as to at l eas t two o f h i s cas es

, t h e p l ea t r an s cri p t s s h o w t h at h i s

g u i l ty p l eas were i nd eed freel y an d v o l un t ari l y en t ered . Th e t ri al co u rt

d e n i ed t h e St at e’ s m o t i o n

, n o t i n g t h at th ere were no t ran s cri p t s o f a n y

o f Rah eem ’ s pl ea h eari ng s

. R a h e e m t h en am en d ed h i s m o t i o n fo r an

o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal

, rei t erat i n g t h e arg u m en t s h e m ad e i n h i s o ri g i nal

m o t i o n an d as sert i n g t hat h i s fai l u re t o fi l e a t i m el y ap p eal in each cas e

was d u e t o in effect i v e as s i s t an ce of co u n s el

, rat her t h an an y fau l t of h i s

o wn

. Th ereaft er, Rah eem was ap p o i nt ed co un s el t o rep res en t h im at th e

h eari n g o n h i s m o t io n.

(Fo o tn o te o m i t t ed

.

) 3 3 3 Ga. Ap p . at 8 2 2

.

F o l l o wi ng a h eari n g o n h i s m o t io n fo r an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal

, t h e t ri al c o u r t

fo u n d t h at in th e 1 9 81 an d 19 8 2 cas es

, “ Rah eem h ad es t ab l is h ed a l eg i t i m at e i s s u e fo r

ap p eal b ecau s e th ere w a s n o ev i den ce t h at

, d uri n g t h e p lea p ro ceed i n g s

, h e was

i n fo rm ed o f h i s ri gh t t o co n fro n t h is accu s ers o r h i s ri gh t a g a i n s t co m p u l s o ry

s el f-i n cri m i n at i o n ,” b u t fo u nd t h at t h e reco rd d em o n s t rat ed th at t h e p lea i n t h e 1 9 8 5

2cas e was k n o wi n g an d v o l u nt ary

. Ra h eem I

, 3 33 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 22 -8 2 3

. T h e t ri al co u rt

t h en “ fo u n d t h at Rah e e m was no t en t i tl ed t o an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal fro m an y o f h i s

co n vi ct i o n s b ecau s e h e h ad n o t s h o wn t h at h e was p reju d i ced

. . . . [b ecau s e] t h ere was

n o ev id en ce t h at t h e res u lt o f t h e p ro ceed i n g s wo u l d h av e b een d i fferen t i f Rah eem

h ad t ak en h i s cas e t o t ri al rat h er t h an p l ead i n g g u i l t y .” Id . at 8 2 3

.

Rah eem ap peal ed t he den i al o f h i s m o t i o n. In Ra h eem I

, we affi rm ed t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s den i al o f Rah eem ’ s m o t i o n fo r an o u t-o f-t im e ap p eal o f t h e 1 9 8 5 arm ed

ro b b ery co n v i ct io n

. 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 2 7-8 2 8 (2 ). W e fu rt h er ag reed wi th t h e t ri al

co u rt th at t h e reco rd d em o ns t rat ed t h at d u ri n g Rah eem ’ s 1 9 8 1 an d 1 9 8 2 p l ea

p ro ceed in g s

, h e was o n l y a d v i s e d o f o n e o f t h e t h ree co n s t i tu t i o n al ri g h t s h e was

wai v i n g b y p l ea d i n g g u i l t y p u rs u an t t o Bo yki n

, n am el y

, t h e ri g h t t o a ju ry t ri al

, b ut

n o t i n f o r m ed o f hi s ri g h t ag ai n s t s el f-i n cri m i n at i o n o r t h e ri g h t t o co n fro n t h i s

a c c u s ers

. Ra h eem I

, 3 3 3 Ga. A p p

. at 8 2 4 -8 2 5 (1 ). Ho wev er, we rev ers ed t h e tri al

co u rt ’s d en i al o f Rah eem ’ s m o t i o n t o fi le an o u t -o f-t i m e ap peal as t o t h e 1 9 8 1 an d

1 9 8 2 co nv i ct io n s

, u p o n fi n d i n g t h a t t h e t ri al co u rt had d en i ed t h e m o t i o n “ wi t h o ut

res o l vi n g t h e d et erm i n at i v e i s s u e o f wh et h er th e fai l u re t o p u r s u e a t i m el y d i rect

3ap p eal was at t ri bu t ab l e t o t ri al co u n s el o r t o Rah eem h im s el f.” 1 (Fo o t n o t es o m i t t ed .)

Id

. at 8 2 6 (1 ). W e “ r e m a n d [ e d ] t h e cas e wi t h d i rect i o n th at t h e co u rt co nd u ct t h e

req u i s i t e i n q u i ry an d m ak e fi nd i n g s [as t o t h e 1 9 8 1 an d 1 98 2 co n v i ct io n s ] reg ard i n g

wh o u l t i m at el y bo re th e res po n s i b i l i t y fo r Rah eem ’ s fai lu re t o fi l e a t i m el y ap p eal .”

Id

.

Up o n rem an d

, an d fo l l o wi n g a h eari n g

, th e t ri al co u rt fo u n d t h a t R a h eem ’ s

fai l u re t o fi l e a ti m el y ap peal o f t h e 1 98 1 an d 19 8 2 co n v i ct i on s was at t ri b u t ab l e t o h i s

at t o r n e y’ s fai l u re t o ad v i s e h i m t h at h e h ad t he ri g h t t o ap p eal an d t h at h e h ad a

l eg i t i m at e i s s u e fo r ap p eal

, g i v e n t h a t t h e reco rd fai led t o es t ab l i s h t h at h e was

i n fo rm ed o f a l l t h ree Bo

yki n ri g h t s

. Su b s eq u en t l y

, t h e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed Rah eem ’ s

m o ti o n fo r an o u t -o f-t im e ap p eal o f t h e t wo co n v i ct i o n s

.

1

. Al t ho ug h t h e St at e co n t en d s t h at t he t ri al co u rt erred i n g ran t i n g Rah eem ’ s

m o ti o n fo r an ou t -o f-t i m e ap p eal

, t h e m eri t s o f th e o rd er o n Rah eem ’ s m o ti o n fo r an

o u t

- o f-t i m e ap p eal are n o t b efo re u s

. Tyn er v. S t a t e

, 2 8 9 Ga. 59 2

, 5 9 4 (3 ) (7 1 4 SE2 d

1 “ An o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal i s a ju d ici al creat i o n t h at s erv es as t h e rem ed y fo r a

fru s t rat ed ri g ht of ap p eal

. ” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed

. ) Si mmo n s v. St a t e

, 2 7 6

Ga. 52 5

, 5 2 6 (5 7 9 SE2 d 7 3 5 ) (2 0 0 3 ). “ Th e d i s p o s i t io n o f a m o ti o n fo r o u t -o f- t i m e

ap p eal h i n g es o n a d et erm i n at i o n o f wh o bo re t h e u l t im at e res p o n s ib i l i t y fo r t h e

fai l u re t o fi l e a t i m el y

ap p eal .”(Ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed .) Gl a s s v. S ta t e , 2 4 8 Ga. Ap p

. 9 1,

9 2 (1 ) (5 4 5 SE2 d 3 6 0) (2 00 1 ).

45 7 7 ) (2 01 1 ), o v erru l ed i n p art o n o t her g ro u n d s

, Lej eu n e v. McLa u g h l i n

, 29 6 Ga. 2 9 1,

2 9 7 (2 ) (7 6 6 SE2 d 8 03 ) ( 2 0 1 4). Th ere i s “ n o b as i s fo r t he St at e t o ap peal t h e o rd er

g ran t i n g t h e o u t -o f-t i m e ap peal o r t o fi l e a cro s s -ap p eal i n t h i s cri m i n al cas e, an d [i n

t h i s cas e] i t d i d n ei t h er. See OCGA § 5 -7 -1 (l i m it i ng t h e m at t ers t h e St at e m ay ap p eal

i n cri m i n al cas es an d n o t au t h o ri zi n g th e St at e t o cro s s -ap p eal ). ” Tyn er

, 2 8 9 Ga. at

5 9 4 (3 ). 2

2

. Rah eem rai s es i d en t i cal arg u m en t s o n ap peal i n cas es A 1 6 A1 3 6 2 an d

A1 6 A1 36 3

. He m ai n tai n s t h at t h e g u i l t y p l eas i n h is 1 9 8 1 an d 1 9 8 2 co n vi ct io n s were

n o t kn o wi n g l y an d v o l u n tari l y en t ered b ecau se he w as n o t i n fo rm ed o f t h e

co n st i t u t io n al ri gh t s req u i red u nder Bo yki n b efo re h e en tered h i s p l ea. Rah eem as s ert s

t h at t h e St at e d i d n o t m eet i t s b u rd en o f es t ab l i s h i n g b y t h e reco rd t hat h e was ad v i s ed

o f t h e t h ree Bo

yki n ri g h ts h e was wai v i ng b y p lead i n g g u i l t y

.

Th e en t ry o f a g u i l t y p l ea i n v ol v es t h e wai v er o f t h r ee fed eral

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s : t h e p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s t c o m p u l s o r y

s el f-i n cri m i n at i o n

, t h e ri g h t t o t ri al b y ju ry

, an d t h e ri g ht t o co n fro n t

o n e’ s a c c u s ers

. It i s t h e d u t y o f a t ri al co u rt t o es tab l i s h t h at th e

2 W e d i s ap p ro v e o f t h e fo l l o wi n g cas es t o th e ex t en t th at t hey co u l d b e rel i ed

u p o n t o s t an d fo r th e p ro p o s i t i o n t hat th e St at e can t i m el y ap p e a l f r o m an o rd er

g ran t i n g an o u t -o f-t i m e ap peal : Fi n ez a v

. S t a t e

, 2 5 5 Ga. Ap p

. 83 5 (5 6 7 SE2 d 1 7 )

(2 0 0 2); To wn s v. S t a t e

, 2 2 8 Ga. Ap p

. 2 6 7 (4 9 1 SE2 d 4 9 7 ) (1 9 9 7 ).

5d efen d an t u n d ers t an d s t he co n s t i t u t io n al ri g h t s b ei n g wai v ed

, an d th e

reco rd m u st rev eal th e defen d an t ’ s wai v er o f t h o s e co n s t i t u t i on al ri g ht s

..

. . . [A] n y d efen d an t wh o p l ead s g u i l t y w i l l b e ab l e t o s ecu re a rev ers al

o f h i s co n v i ct i o n i f t h e reco rd d o es n o t s h o w th at he w as s p eci f i c a l l y

ad v i sed o f each o f t h e t h ree Bo yki n ri g h t s an d h e p ro p erl y p res en t s t he

i s su e t o a rev i ewi n g co u rt

. N e v e r th el es s

, o u r Su p rem e Co u rt h as

reco gn i zed t h at n o t h i n g i n Bo yki n req u i res t h e St at e du ri n g a g u i l ty pl ea

p ro ceed i n g t o u se an y p reci s el y -d efi n ed l an g u ag e o r ‘ m ag i c wo rd s

.

(Ci t at i o n s an d p u nct u at i on o m it t ed .) Ch il d s v. S ta t e

, 3 1 1 G a. A p p

. 8 9 1, 8 9 1 -8 9 2 (1 )

(7 1 7 SE2 d 5 09 ) (2 0 1 1). T h e St at e b ears t h e b u rd en o n d i rect rev i ew t o es t ab l i s h t h at

t h e p l ea was k n o wi n g l y an d v o l u n t ari l y en t ered

. Ki n g v. St a t e

, 2 7 0 Ga. 3 6 7, 3 6 9 (5 0 9

SE2 d 3 2 ) (1 9 9 8 ).

Th e St at e wi l l m eet i t s b u r d e n o f p ro o f if i t i n tro d u ces a “ p erfect ”

t ran s cri p t o f t h e tak i n g o f t he g u i l t y pl ea, o n e wh i ch refl ect s a co l l o q u y

b et ween ju d g e an d d efen d a n t w h erei n th e d efen d an t was i n fo rm ed o f

an d s p eci fi cal l y wai v ed h i s ri g h t t o t r i a l b y ju ry

, hi s p ri v i l eg e ag ai n s t

s el f i n cri m i n at io n

, an d h i s ri g h t to co n fro n t h i s accu s ers

. If t h e S t at e

i n t ro d u ces an y t hi ng l es s t h an a “ p erfect ” t ran s cri p t

, t he ju dg e t hen m u s t

wei g h t h e ev i d en ce s u b m i t t ed b y t h e d efen d an t an d b y t h e St at e t o

d et erm i ne wh et h er th e St at e h as m et it s b u rd en o f p ro v i n g t hat

de f e nd an t ’ s p ri o r g ui lt y p l ea was i n fo rm ed an d v o l un t ary

, an d m ad e w ith

an art i cu l at ed wai v er o f t h e t h ree Bo yki n ri g ht s

.

6(Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i tt ed .) Na s h v. S t a t e

, 2 7 1 Ga. 28 1

, 2 8 5 (5 1 9 SE2 d 8 9 3 )

(1 9 9 9).

Here, th ere i s n o t ran scri p t o f t h e p l ea h eari ng o f t h e 1 9 8 1 an d 1 9 82 cas es

. In

b o th cas es

, t h ere i s a p re-p ri n t ed fo rm i n cl u d ed i n t h e reco rd l ab el ed “ Tran s cri p t

. ”

Th e o n ly Bo

yki n ri g h t ack n o wl ed g ed o n t h e fo rm i s t h e ri gh t t o a ju ry t ri al

. Tri al

co u ns el fo r th e 1 9 8 2 p l ea t es t i fi ed t h at “ t h e Bo yki n ri g h t s weren ’ t s peci fi cal l y

co n si d ered at t hat t i m e becau s e t h e co u rt s y s t em was u naware o f i t or di d n ’ t u s e t h e

Bo yki n cas e i n t h ei r p l ea p ro ces s .” Th e St at e co n ced es t h at th e reco rd on i t s face d o es

n o t d em o n s t rat e t hat Rah eem was ad v i s ed o f an d w ai v ed al l t h ree Bo yki n ri g h t s

, b ut

as s ert s t h at an y s u ch d efi ci en cy was h arm l es s b ecau s e Rah eem n ev er cl ai m ed t h at h e

wo u l d h av e ch o sen t o g o t o t ri al i n s t ead o f t ak i ng a p l ea, h ad h e b e fu l l y ad v i s ed o f

al l o f h i s Bo

yki n ri g h t s

. 3

Reg ard l es s o f t h e p ract i ces i n p l ace at t h at t i m e,

[t ] h e req u i rem en t t h at a p l ea o f g u i l t y m u s t b e i n t el l ig en t an d v o lu n t ary

t o b e v a l i d h as l o ng b een reco gn i zed

. Rat h er, t h e p ro ced u ral el em en t

ad d ed i n Bo

yki n was t h e req u i rem en t t h at t h e reco rd mu st a f f i rma t i vel y

3 T h e St at e as sert s t h i s arg u m en t wi t h in t h e co n t ex t o f i t s cl ai m t h at t r i a l

co u ns el was n o t i n effect i v e an d t h u s t h at th e m ot i o n fo r t h e o ut -o f-t im e ap p eal s

s h o u ld n o t h av e b een g ran t ed

. As n o t ed i n Di v i si o n 1, an y ch al l en ge t o t h at o rd er i s

n o t b efo re u s o n rev iew.

7d i s cl o s e th at a d ef e n dan t wh o p lead ed g u i l t y en t ered h i s pl ea

u n d ers t an di n g l y an d vo l u n t ari l y

. Th u s

, Bo yki n i m p o sed a co n s t i t u t i o nal

reco rd -k eep i ng req u i rem en t o n t h e s t at es i f t h ey h o p ed t o i n s u l at e s t at e

g u i l ty p l eas fro m

fu t u re at t ack s o n fed eral co n st i tu t i o n al g ro u n d s

.

(Fo o tn o tes an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ; em p h as i s s up p li ed .) W

i l ey v. Mi l es

, 2 82 Ga. 5 7 3,

5 7 5 -5 7 6 (2 ) (6 5 2 SE2 d 5 62 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (es t ab l i s h i n g t h at Bo yki n ap pl ies t o g u i l t y p l eas

en t ered aft er J u n e 2 , 1 9 6 9 ).

Ou r ap p el l at e co u rt s h av e “ i n t erp ret ed t h i s ad v i ce an d wai ver o f t h e t h ree

Bo yki n ri g h ts as a s t ri ct co n s t i t u t i o n al req u i rem en t

, w i t h rev ers al t he au t o m at i c

co n seq u en ce i f an y d ev i at i o n i s fo un d t o h av e o ccu rred .” Tyn er

, 2 8 9 Ga. at 5 9 5 (4 ). 4

Here i t i s u n d i s p u ted t h at t he reco rd d o es n o t d i scl o s e t h at Rah eem was ad v i s ed o f h i s

ri gh t ag ai n s t s el f-i n cri m i n at i on o r t h e ri g h t t o co n fro n t wi t n es s es

.

Acco rd i ng l y

, be c a

u se R a h e e m w a s n o t a fu ll y ad v i s ed o f t h e ri g h t s

h e w as wai v i n g by p lead i n g g ui l t y in t h e 1 9 8 1 an d 1 98 2 cas es

, t he reco rd d o es n ot

4 Per t he h o l d in g i n Lej eu n e v. McLa u gh l i n

, 29 6 Ga. 2 9 1 ( 7 6 6 SE2 d 8 0 3 )

(2 0 1 4), t h e b u rd en n ow sh i ft s i n h a b ea s co r pu s cas es t o t h e d efen d an t t o p ro v e t h at

h i s g u i lt y p l ea was n o t kn o wi n g an d v o l u n t ary

, “ [b ] u t th ere i s n o t hi n g i n Lej eu n e

rem o t el y s u g g es t i n g th at t h e St at e no l o ng er h as t h e b u rd en o f d em o n s t rat i n g

, i n t h e

co n t e x t o f a d i rect ap p eal fro m a ju d g m en t o f co n v i ct i o n

, t h at a d efen dan t ’ s g ui l t y

p l ea was v o l u n t ary

, k n o wi n g

, an d i n t el l i g en t.” Ra h eem I

, 3 3 3 Ga. Ap p . at 82 1 (1 ) n.

1 3

.

8s u b s t an t i at e t h at h is p l eas were k n o wi n g l y an d v o lu n t ari l y

. T hu s

, h i s gu i l ty p l eas are

i n v al i d

, h i s 1 9 8 1 an d 1 9 82 co n v i ct i o n s are rev ers ed

, an d b ot h cas es are rem an d ed to

t h e t ri al co u rt fo r fu rt h er p ro ceed i n g s co n s i st en t wi th t h i s d eci s i o n

. See Ver a v. S t a t e

,

3 2 9 Ga. Ap p . 1 7 7 (7 64 SE2 d 4 2 7 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

Ju d g men t s rever s ed

. Do yl e, C.J., An d

r ews

, P .J., Mi l l er

, P.J., El l i n gt o n

, P.J.,

a n d Ph ip p s, PJ., Di ll a r d

, McFa d d en

, Bo g g s

, Ra y, Br a n ch

, McMi ll i an

, a nd Pet er s o n,

JJ co n cu r. Ri ckma n

, a n d Mer ci er , JJ co n cu r

i n j u d g m en t o n ly

.

9