Court Opinion

ID: 9851478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:13:34.583969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:57.536189
License: Public Domain

HUNSTEIN, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
This case involves an ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised in regard to appellant Sean David Cleveland’s decision to reject a plea offer, consisting of probation and a fine, and instead proceed to trial where, upon conviction, he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment. I agree with the majority and the Court of Appeals that appellant established that his defense counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable for purposes of the attorney competence prong of the Strickland v. *149Washington test. On the legal issue raised in regard to the “inference” language in Lloyd v. State, 258 Ga. 645 (2) (b) (373 SE2d 1) (1988), I also agree with the majority that nothing in Lloyd changed the prejudice prong requirement that, to prevail on an ineffectiveness claim, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would have accepted the plea. Where I disagree is whether appellant carried his burden of proving prejudice. Because my review of the record establishes that appellant proved a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the State’s plea deal had defense counsel performed in a reasonably competent manner, I respectfully dissent.
The following facts are necessary to an understanding of this case. Appellant was stopped for driving a van with no tag on it and arrested for traffic violations. An inventory search of the van revealed drugs and drug paraphernalia behind the driver’s seat and inside a cigarette purse located in the rear of the van on the passenger side. As noted by the Court of Appeals, the items in the van “were either not visible or immediately recognizable as contraband.” Cleveland v. State, 290 Ga. App. 835, 838 (660 SE2d 777) (2008). Additionally, appellant claimed that the van was used primarily by another person and any contraband inside it belonged to that person.
Appellant, who had no previous criminal record, was charged with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and criminal attempt to traffic in methamphetamine, along with misdemeanor traffic offenses. The felony charges, however, were not based solely upon the evidence seized during the traffic stop but were also based upon incriminating evidence seized during a subsequent search of appellant’s home. The evidence seized in the search of the home included, inter alia, “pure distilled ephedrine in a bottle in the home’s refrigerator, a straw with residue in the bedroom, and numerous other items commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine in a burn pile on the property.” Cleveland v. State, supra, 290 Ga. App. at 837. Surveillance cameras throughout the property and a surveillance monitoring device were also discovered. Id.
As detailed in the Court of Appeals’ opinion, Cleveland v. State, supra, 290 Ga. App. at 838, defense counsel failed to discover that the State’s case against appellant included any evidence other than that obtained during the traffic stop until after the start of appellant’s trial. Thus, it is uncontroverted that defense counsel did not know about the evidence seized during the search of appellant’s home prior to trial when appellant was offered a plea deal by the State that involved only probation and a fine, with no jail time. Counsel’s advice *150to appellant regarding the plea deal was necessarily influenced by counsel’s unprofessional ignorance of critical, incriminating evidence the State intended to use against his client. As the Court of Appeals correctly recognized, “[wjithout this information, [appellant] could not [have] ma[d]e an informed decision about whether to accept or reject the State’s plea offer of straight probation.” Cleveland v. State, supra, 290 Ga. App. at 839. Uninformed and ill-advised, appellant rejected the plea deal.
Compounding the errors caused by counsel’s deficient performance in regard to the failures to examine the State’s file in a reasonably professional manner and to provide meaningful advice in regard to the State’s plea offer, the record establishes that defense counsel never sought to renew plea negotiations with the State after counsel learned about this critical evidence against his client.23 The prosecutor stated at the new trial hearing that he was never approached by defense counsel on appellant’s behalf “about a different plea deal, or going back to the old plea deal, or anything else like that” at any time after defense counsel learned about the evidence from the search of appellant’s home. The prosecutor’s statement confirmed appellant’s own testimony that defense counsel did not discuss making any sort of plea agreement with the State after they discovered the evidence from the home search would be used.24 Under these circumstances, I would recognize that defense counsel also performed deficiently by failing to approach the prosecutor about renewing plea negotiations after counsel learned about the incriminating evidence from the home search.
Appellant was tried and convicted of the felony charges. He was given the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for attempted trafficking in methamphetamine25 and a consecutive ten-year sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Appellant timely moved for a new trial asserting, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel, and, at the hearing on his motion, gave testimony in which he acknowledged he would have accepted the State’s plea offer had he known that the State was going to introduce *151the evidence seized from his house. The trial court thereafter denied the motion for new trial without explanation.26
The majority and the Court of Appeals both correctly held that the “reasonable probability” standard applies to the assessment of the prejudice prong in those ineffectiveness claims based on rejected guilty pleas and that this standard was not altered by language in Lloyd v. State, supra, 258 Ga. at 648-649 (2) (b). I fully concur with this holding.27 However, I dissent from the majority’s opinion and would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because I find, based on my review of the record, that they both incorrectly assessed the evidence to conclude that appellant failed to establish a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the State’s plea had defense counsel properly advised him about all of the evidence in the State’s case against him.
I address the five evidentiary items set forth by the Court of Appeals for its holding, see Cleveland v. State, supra, 290 Ga. App. at 839, because, although those items were not directly adopted by the majority, neither were they expressly repudiated. The Court of Appeals first identified appellant’s testimony at the hearing on the motion for new trial that he was “dumb” in declining the State’s offer. That “dumb” decision, however, predated appellant’s awareness that the State would be using the evidence seized from his home against him and thus it cannot shed any possible light on whether appellant would or would not have accepted the offer had he known of the home-search evidence.28 The Court of Appeals next referenced *152appellant’s statement, at his sentencing after conviction, in which he protested his innocence.29 I agree with the Court of Appeals that evidence of a defendant’s post-conviction protestation of innocence is pertinent to the court’s consideration whether the defendant would have accepted a guilty plea offer. See, e.g., Cullen v. United States, 194 F3d 401 (2nd Cir. 1999). However, it is only one factor in a determination that should be based on all relevant circumstances. Id. Accord Lloyd v. State, supra, 258 Ga. at 648 (adopting a case-by-case approach). Because other considerations in this case, as discussed below, compel the conclusion that there is a reasonable probability appellant would have accepted the plea agreement, I cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that this one statement alone supports a contrary holding.
Reserving, for the moment, the third item, the Court of Appeals next pointed to the fact that appellant, after learning during jury selection that the home-search evidence would be used against him, “did not seek to renew the earlier plea offer after learning about the true nature of the State’s case.” Cleveland v. State, supra, 290 Ga. App. at 839. Appellant is not a lawyer and, prior to the events at issue, had no criminal record. He could not reasonably have been expected to know, once his trial had already started, that plea negotiations could still be pursued so as to request defense counsel to renew them. Appellant certainly could not have initiated any renewed negotiations on his own without benefit of counsel and, as discussed earlier, the record is clear that counsel performed defi-ciently by failing to take any steps on behalf of his client to re-initiate negotiations. This evidentiary item utterly fails to support the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that there is no reasonable probability appellant would have accepted a plea had he known “the true nature of the State’s case.” Id.
Given that the State was never approached about renewing the plea after appellant learned of the critical evidence during jury selection, the Court of Appeals’ third fact is wholly unpersuasive, inasmuch as the prosecutor’s statement that appellant was “adamant about going to trial,” id., necessarily reflected appellant’s uninformed understanding of his legal situation prior to trial.
Finally, the Court of Appeals relied upon the showing in the record that appellant “knew that the police searched his house.” *153Cleveland v. State, supra, 290 Ga. App. at 839. However, the record also conclusively shows that appellant did not understand the legal significance of that search. The pertinent evidence, which is quoted by the majority, clearly establishes that appellant did not realize the items seized from his home during the search would be used as evidence against him at his trial. The constitutional right of a criminal defendant to effective assistance of counsel, which is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, is grounded on the idea that persons like appellant who are unschooled in the law need professional assistance when it comes to understanding matters such as search warrants and the admissibility of incriminating evidence at trial. ‘“Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. ... He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense .... He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.’” Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 344-345 (83 SC 792, 9 LE2d 799) (1963). See also Heath v. State, 268 Ga. App. 235 (601 SE2d 758) (2004) (defendant entitled to guiding hand of effective counsel during guilty plea negotiations). Appellant, even knowing police officers had searched his house, could not have made an intelligent and informed decision about the State’s plea offer without professional advice by defense counsel regarding the legal status of the items seized during the search30 and the effect such evidence might have on his chances of acquittal. Accordingly, I strongly reject the Court of Appeals’ position that appellant’s awareness of the search, by itself, constituted relevant proof to support its conclusion that appellant in all reasonable probability would have declined the State’s plea offer.
The majority does not address these “facts” on which the Court of Appeals relied but instead grounds its holding on the basis that the “sum total” of appellant’s evidence consisted of his “after-the-fact and self-serving” assertion that he would have pled guilty except for counsel’s deficient performance. Maj. Op., p. 147. I agree with the majority that appellant’s assertion, like most testimony by witnesses who are parties, is likely to be self-serving and that the self-serving nature of the testimony goes to his credibility. However, I disagree with the majority that appellant’s testimony stands alone in the record. The majority’s analysis incorrectly overlooks two intercon*154nected but equally critical items in the record that together establish a reasonable probability that appellant would have accepted the State’s plea offer had he known the home-search evidence would be used against him at trial. That critical evidence consists of (1) the significant disparity that existed between the terms of the State’s offer (probation for a term of years plus a fine) and the mandatory ten-year minimum sentence, with the potential for an even harsher sentence, that appellant faced upon conviction and (2) the quantitative and qualitative difference between the traffic-stop evidence, on which appellant based his initial rejection of the plea, and the evidence derived from the search of appellant’s home.
Because appellant was offered but then rejected the State’s no-jail-time plea, the significant disparity between the plea terms and mandatory minimum sentence appellant faced is not compelling in and of itself. Compare, e.g., Cullen v. United States, supra, 194 F3d at 407-408. But that rejection was based on appellant’s uninformed understanding that only the evidence seized during the traffic stop would be used against him at trial. As noted earlier, that evidence was either not visible in the van or did not appear to be contraband. Cleveland v. State, supra, 290 Ga. App. at 838. Given the access others had to the van, its primary use by another and the nature and location of the evidence seized, appellant’s rejection of the State’s plea offer was not unreasonable. However, the situation changes completely when the incriminating evidence derived from the search of appellant’s home is factored into the equation. That evidence — the bottle of pure distilled ephedrine found in the kitchen refrigerator, the smoking devices located in the office and bedroom, the meth-manufacturing items found in the burn pile, the surveillance cameras and monitoring devices discovered throughout the property — could not be explained away like the van-search evidence. It was visible; it was pervasive; it was, quite simply, overwhelming evidence of guilt. When that evidence is taken into consideration, no competent attorney would consider advising a client to reject a probation-only plea deal when a mandatory, ten-year minimum sentence was the near-certain outcome of trying the case to a jury.
In the context of guilty pleas, the prejudice prong of the Strickland v. Washington test requires only that a defendant establish a reasonable probability that counsel’s constitutionally ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process. See generally Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S. 52, 58-59 (106 SC 366, 88 LE2d 203) (1985). “‘“A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (Cit.)’ [Cit.]” Upton v. Parks, 284 Ga. 254, 255 (664 SE2d 196) (2008). In this case, because of counsel’s ineffective performance, appellant did not know the *155incriminating home-search evidence could be used against him when he decided to reject the State’s plea deal. Because of counsel’s ineffective performance, appellant was deprived of any possible opportunity to accept or renegotiate the plea after he finally did learn the legal significance of that evidence. Appellant asserts he would have accepted the no-jail-time plea offer had he known the true nature of the State’s case against him. Under the circumstances in this case, I would find that appellant carried his burden and established a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the State’s offer and pled guilty rather than proceed to trial. Because the majority’s contrary conclusion under these facts effectively obliterates the “reasonable probability” standard and imposes in its stead a standard in which a defendant like appellant can prevail only by proving prejudice to a certainty, I must respectfully dissent.
Decided March 9, 2009.
James D. Lamb, for appellant.
J. Gray Conger, District Attorney, William D. Kelly, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

 While the home-search evidence was new to the defense, it was not new to the State, which had been in full possession of all of the evidence when it originally offered appellant probation and a fine in exchange for his guilty plea.

 When defense counsel was asked whether he approached the State about re-issuing its plea offer, he could not affirmatively state that he did so but instead replied only that “[it] seems like we did, hut I can’t remember exactly how that went.”

 See Watson v. State, 276 Ga. 212 (576 SE2d 897) (2003) (the one-half of maximum sentence provisions of OCGA § 16-4-8 not applicable to criminal attempt to traffic in drugs, which is instead governed by OCGA § 16-13-33).

 Contrary to language in the majority opinion, the trial court made no express findings whatsoever regarding factual matters at issue in resolving the prejudice prong. This case is therefore distinguishable from Larochelle v. State, 231 Ga. App. 736 (4) (499 SE2d 371) (1998), cited by the Court of Appeals for the proposition that the evidence in this case “ ‘supports a finding, implicit in the trial court’s ruling, that there was no reasonable probability’ that [appellant] would have pled guilty but for counsel’s ineffectiveness,” Cleveland v. State, supra, 290 Ga. App. at 839-840, because the trial court in Larochelle “[a]pparently anticipating that the issue might be reached on appeal, . . . entered a finding on the . . . question of whether Larochelle would have accepted the plea offer made.” Thus, although a judgment that is right for any reason will be affirmed, see Abdulkadir v. State, 279 Ga. 122, 125, fn. 16 (610 SE2d 50) (2005), this case does not involve a situation where an appellate court is re-assessing express factual findings by the trial court.

 Accordingly, I would recognize that language in cases such as Burch v. State, 289 Ga. App. 388, 389, fn. 1 (657 SE2d 294) (2008), intimating the contrary, should be deemed disapproved.

 The Court of Appeals, when noting that appellant did testify he would have accepted the State’s offer had he known of the home-search evidence, also asserted that he did so “[o]nly after additional leading questioning by his counsel,” Cleveland v. State, 290 Ga. App. at 839, so as to indicate that appellant gave this testimony only after he was improperly induced to do so by counsel. “A leading question is one which suggests the answer desired by the questioner.” (Footnote omitted.) Green, Georgia Law of Evidence § 128, p. 254 (3rd ed.). Because the pertinent questioning, which is set forth in the majority opinion, clearly reflects no such *152improper leading by counsel, this matter is not supported by the record and can provide no basis for the Court of Appeals’ holding.

 The transcript reveals that, in response to the trial court’s inquiry during sentencing as to whether appellant had anything he wished to say, appellant responded, “You guys are wrong. I — I had nothing to do with it, nothing at all. That’d be all.”

 Without professional advice appellant would not know, e.g., whether the items were seized pursuant to a valid warrant, whether the items could be admitted at trial or were subject to foundational or other objections, whether, if the items were not themselves contraband, they could nevertheless incriminate appellant, etc.