Opinion ID: 3157648
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Verdict and Post-Conviction Proceedings

Text: The jury found Hawes guilty, and the court imposed a 15-year sentence on counts one and two, and 12 months on count three, to be served concurrently— dramatically longer than his original sentence. Hawes was represented by new counsel on direct appeal. Hawes raised three sentencing-related claims on appeal but did not challenge trial counsel’s performance or any evidentiary rulings made by the trial court. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed Hawes’s conviction and sentence, and the Georgia Supreme Court denied certiorari. Hawes v. State, 680 S.E.2d 513 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009), cert. denied (Ga. Jan. 12, 2010). Hawes then filed a state habeas petition. He brought a number of claims, including the following, which are relevant to this appeal: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on failure to lay a foundation for the admission of the January 2 email; (2) trial court error when the court would not permit Hawes to question K.P., in violation of the Sixth Amendment, about an online journal entry in which she made false allegations against two teachers; and (5) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise on direct appeal the various claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and trial court error. 5 Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 6 of 16 The state habeas court held an evidentiary hearing, at which Hawes and his appellate counsel testified. Strikingly, appellate counsel testified that he did not think he could bring an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim because trial counsel had assisted him with the appeal. The state habeas court denied Hawes’s petition. The court concluded that although Hawes’s appellate counsel was deficient for thinking he could not bring ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims, Hawes was not eligible for relief because he could not show counsel’s mistake prejudiced him. The court reasoned that the jury had already seen sufficient evidence that the victim had lied on many occasions, and therefore the evidence was cumulative. The court also concluded that appellate counsel was not deficient for failing to appeal the trial court’s exclusion of an online journal entry written by K.P., because no Georgia precedent established the admissibility of a victim’s false allegations of sexual misconduct made after the charged incident. The Georgia Supreme Court denied Hawes’s application for a Certificate of Probable Cause to appeal. Hawes filed a pro se § 2254 federal habeas petition. The district court denied Hawes’s petition, concluding that the state habeas court’s decision on 6 Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 7 of 16 Hawes’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was not an unreasonable application of federal law. Hawes timely appealed. 2