Court Opinion

ID: 9618049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:05:46.387611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:23.178648
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U. S. 654 (122 SC 1764, 152 LE2d 888) (2002) should be applied retroactively to reverse the judgment of the habeas court in this case. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
The general rule is that a habeas court applies the law in effect at the time of the judgment of conviction. As explained by Justice Harlan,
“Habeas corpus always has been a collateral remedy, providing an avenue for upsetting judgments that have become otherwise final. It is not designed as a substitute for direct review....” [Cit.] . . . [I]t is “sounder, in adjudicating habeas petitions, generally to apply the law prevailing at the time a conviction became final than it is to seek to dispose of (habeas) cases on the basis of intervening changes in constitutional interpretation.” [Cit.] . . . “[T]he threat of habeas serves as a necessary additional incentive for trial and appellate courts throughout the land to conduct their proceedings in a manner consistent with established constitutional standards. In order to perform this deterrence function,. . . the habeas court need only apply the constitutional standards that prevailed at the time the original proceedings took place.” [Cit.] (Emphasis in original.)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 306-307 (IV) (B) (109 SC 1060, 103 *109LE2d 334) (1989). There is a limited exception to this general rule of non-retroactivity for cases on collateral review, which occurs when the United States Supreme Court issues a decision that results in a “new rule.” Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U. S. 348, 351 (II) (124 SC 2519, 159 LE2d 442) (2004). As stated by the Supreme Court in Teague v. Lane, supra at 301 (IV) (A):
It is admittedly often difficult to determine when a case announces a new rule, and we do not attempt to define the spectrum of what may or may not constitute a new rule for retroactivity purposes. In general, however, a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government. [Cits.] To put it differently, a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final. [Cit.] (Emphasis omitted.)
The Supreme Court has further held that, generally, new substantive rules apply retroactively, but new rules of procedure do not apply retroactively. Schriro v. Summerlin, supra at 351-352 (II).
In finding that Shelton announced a new procedural rule that should, contrary to the general rule, be applied retroactively, the majority follows the rationale of Howard v. United States, 374 F3d 1068 (11th Cir. 2004), stating that “the Eleventh Circuit has persuasively shown that the rule established in Shelton was not dictated by existing precedent. [Cit.]” (Maj. Op., p. 107) Of course, this Court is not required to follow the decision in Howard. “While we are at liberty to consider [such] authority, the appellate courts of this state are ‘not bound by decisions of. . . federal courts except the United States Supreme Court.’ [Cit.]” Balmer v. Elan Corp., 278 Ga. 227, 229-230 (2) (599 SE2d 158) (2004). Moreover, unlike the majority, I do not find Howard to be either persuasive or correct, because it is apparent from the plain language of Shelton that its result was indeed dictated by existing precedent.
In Shelton, the Supreme Court plainly stated that “[t]wo prior decisions control the Court’s judgment.” Alabama v. Shelton, supra at 657. Those two decisions, Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (92 SC 2006, 32 LE2d 530) (1972) and Scott v. Illinois, 440 U. S. 367 (99 SC 1158, 59 LE2d 383) (1979), established the “actual imprisonment” rule. The Supreme Court explained, “[i]t is thus the controlling rule that ‘absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense . . . unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.’ Argersinger, [supra] at 37.” Alabama v. Shelton, supra at 662 (II) (A). Based on that controlling rule of actual *110imprisonment, the Supreme Court clarified the precise issue before it in Shelton: “The question presented is whether the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel, as delineated in Argersinger and Scott, applies to a defendant in Shelton’s situation.” Alabama v. Shelton, supra at 658. The Supreme Court then applied the controlling rule to the case before it and concluded that a suspended prison sentence may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded the assistance of counsel. Alabama v. Shelton, supra. In reaching that holding, the Supreme Court noted that a
suspended sentence is a prison term imposed for the offense of conviction. Once the prison term is triggered, the defendant is incarcerated not for the probation violation, but for the underlying offense. The uncounseled conviction at that point “results in imprisonment,” [cit.]; it “ends up in the actual deprivation of a person’s liberty,” [cit.] This is precisely what the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted in Argersinger and Scott, does not allow.
Alabama v. Shelton, supra at 662 (II) (B).
Thus, it is clear from the Supreme Court’s language in Shelton that it was not breaking new ground or imposing a new obligation on the states or federal government. Teague v. Lane, supra. Rather, the Court simply reached a limited holding that was compelled by the controlling Sixth Amendment precedent of Argersinger and Scott, because the circumstances in Shelton were “precisely what [that existing law] does not allow.” Alabama v. Shelton, supra. Accordingly, “[t]his does not constitute a ‘new rule’ as contemplated by [Teague].” Hickman v. State, 2004 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 64 at *4 (Jan. 28, 2004) (holding that Shelton did not announce a new rule). Because Shelton did not result in a new rule, it cannot be applied retroactively to collateral proceedings. See Harris v. State, 273 Ga. 608, 610 (2) (543 SE2d 716) (2001) (following Teague in holding that newly announced rule of criminal procedure will not apply retroactively to convictions challenged on habeas corpus).
In reaching a contrary opinion about Shelton, the Eleventh Circuit stated that overshadowing its decision
is one momentous fact: Every extension of the right to counsel from Gideon [v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (83 SC 792, 9 LE2d 799) (1963)] through Argersinger has been applied retroactively to collateral proceedings by the Supreme Court.
Howard v. United States, supra at 1077 (III) (C). The majority echoes *111this sentiment, citing the same Supreme Court cases cited by Howard. (Maj. Op., pp. 107-108) However, rather than supporting the Howard and majority opinions, those previous decisions retroactively applying the right to counsel actually undermine the idea that Shelton must be retroactively applied. As the Howard court conceded, the impact of those retroactivity decisions is lessened because they were made before Teague, when the issue of retroactivity was decided under completely different standards than those established by Teague. Howard v. United States, supra at 1078 (III) (C). Indeed,
Decided April 19, 2010.
Antonio Alford, pro se.
Julia F. Slater, District Attorney, Wesley A. Lambertus, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, for appellees.
[t]he Supreme Court has not decided the retroactivity of any rule expanding Gideon since the Teague regime began in 1989. .. . Because of the substantial difference in analysis, the pre-Teague decisions applying Gideon-related rights retroactively do not control whether a post-Teague decision ... is retroactively applicable.
Howard v. United States, supra.
Furthermore, as noted in Howard, all of the prior retroactive applications of the right to counsel have been made by the Supreme Court itself. However, as the Eleventh Circuit conceded in a subsequent case, “[t]he Supreme Court has never made its Shelton decision retroactive. . . .” Flint v. Jordan, 514 F3d 1165, 1166 (11th Cir. 2008). Indeed, two years after Shelton, in a discussion of new procedural rules that should be applied retroactively, the Supreme Court expressly stated that “[t]his class of rules is extremely narrow, and ‘it is unlikely that any . . . “ha(s) yet to emerge.’” [Cits.]” Schriro v. Summerlin, supra at 352 (III). This statement and the fact that the Supreme Court has never applied Shelton retroactively clearly indicate that Shelton did not announce a new procedural rule that applies retroactively to collateral proceedings. Unlike the Eleventh Circuit, this Court should follow the lead of the Supreme Court by not applying Shelton retroactively. Accordingly, contrary to the majority opinion, I believe that the habeas court correctly denied the habeas petition and that its judgment should be affirmed.
*112Sarah L. Gerwig-Moore, Leigh S. Schrope, Amanda N. Heath, Wesley C. Turner, amici curiae.