Charleston Reid v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 4, 2019
DocketA19A1644
StatusPublished

This text of Charleston Reid v. State (Charleston Reid v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charleston Reid v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

FIFTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, C. J., MCMILLIAN, P. J., and SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE PHIPPS

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules

November 18, 2019

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A19A1644. REID v. THE STATE.

PHIPPS, Senior Appellate Judge.

This is the third appearance of this pro se criminal matter before this Court. In

Reid v. State, 339 Ga. App. 772 (792 SE2d 732) (2016) (physical precedent only, cert.

denied, June 5, 2017) (“Reid I”), recently overruled in Collier v. State, — Ga. — (—

SE2d —), *9 (Case No. S19A0658, decided October 21, 2019),1 this Court affirmed

the denial of Charleston Reid’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but also remanded

1 Collier holds that in order to obtain an out-of-time appeal after either trial or a guilty plea, a defendant “need only show that the procedural deficiency in not filing a timely appeal was due to counsel’s failure to perform his duties, and he does not need to demonstrate that his hypothetical appeal might have had merit.” (Emphasis and punctuation omitted.) Id. at *9; see also White v. State, 277 Ga. 647, 648 (594 SE2d 329) (2004), and Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 486 (II) (B) (3) (120 SCt 1029, 145 LE2d 985) (2000). Given that Reid has obtained this out-of-time appeal, the question whether he was previously and erroneously denied one is moot. the case for a hearing on trial counsel’s ineffectiveness because some of the counts

on which Reid was convicted “should” or “could” have merged. Reid I, 339 Ga. App.

at 775 (1), 776-778 (2) (a), (b), (c). On remand from Reid I, the trial court denied

Reid’s motions for appointment of appellate counsel, to withdraw his plea, to merge

his obstruction convictions, and for an out-of-time appeal. See Reid v. State, 344 Ga.

App. 895, 897 (812 SE2d 89) (2018) (“Reid II”). In Reid II, this Court again affirmed

the denial of Reid’s motion to withdraw his plea and the refusal to appoint counsel,

but we reversed the trial court’s ruling that he was not entitled to an out-of-time

appeal, and we vacated its merger ruling. Id. at 898-899 (4), 899-900 (5) (physical

precedent only as to Division 5). On remand from Reid II, the trial court granted Reid

an out-of-time appeal and denied his motion to withdraw his plea on the ground that

the issue was settled by Reid I.

On this out-of-time third appeal, Reid again asserts that his plea was not valid

and that the trial court erred in not appointing him counsel. Reid also argues that the

trial court erred in failing to merge his convictions for felony obstruction,

misdemeanor obstruction and aggravated assault against one police officer and for

felony obstruction and misdemeanor obstruction against a second officer. We now

implement our earlier holding that the felony obstruction and aggravated assault

2 convictions merge as a matter of law, and we therefore vacate his conviction and

remand for resentencing.

We set out the relevant facts in Reid II as follows:

Reid pled guilty on August 19, 2014, to possession with intent to distribute cocaine, two counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer, two felony counts of obstruction of a peace officer, and two misdemeanor counts of obstruction of a peace officer. Reid sought an out-of-time appeal, arguing that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and that some of his convictions should have merged. [In Reid I,] [t]his Court held that the record demonstrated that Reid’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary [and thus] could not serve as the basis for an out-of-time appeal. We also held, however, that at least two of Reid’s convictions should have merged, and two others possibly should have merged. For this reason, we found that a direct appeal of Reid’s conviction would have had merit and, accordingly, the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing as to whether ineffective assistance of counsel was the reason Reid’s conviction was not timely appealed.

On remand [from Reid I], after Reid filed a motion for appointment of counsel and another motion to withdraw guilty plea, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, the trial court heard testimony from Reid and the two officers involved in the altercation that served as the basis for Reid’s convictions. Although most of Reid’s testimony concerning the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel related to counsel’s

3 alleged lack of preparation and his advice that Reid accept the State’s plea offer, Reid also testified as follows: “I[f] I had’ve know [sic] that I could appeal this, you know, I would. I would have, you know, before the time ran out. But I didn’t even know anything until I got to prison and started trying to learn. . . .” The State attempted to subpoena Reid’s trial counsel to testify at the hearing, but determined that he had retired and moved to Alaska. The State suggested, however, that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel could be decided without its witness. Therefore, the trial court proceeded without the testimony of trial counsel with the understanding that if the trial court believed trial counsel’s testimony was necessary, it would continue the hearing so his testimony could be secured.

Ultimately, the trial court implicitly denied Reid’s motion for appointment of counsel; denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea; found that the convictions for felony and misdemeanor obstruction did not merge; and denied Reid’s motion for an out-of-time appeal upon finding Reid was not prejudiced by any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Reid II, 344 Ga. App. at 896-897.

Our decision in Reid II contained five divisions. In Division 1, we held that

because “Reid did not timely move to withdraw his guilty plea or timely appeal his

conviction,” he “was not entitled to appointed counsel on remand.” 344 Ga. App. at

897 (1). In Division 2, we rejected Reid’s argument that the trial court should have

4 vacated his sentences, noting that “it would have been premature for the trial court

to vacate any of Reid’s convictions on remand following Reid I” before a hearing had

been held to determine whether the ineffectiveness of Reid’s trial counsel “frustrated

his right to a direct appeal,” and instructing the trial court to hold such a hearing. Id.

at 897 (2). In Division 3, we rejected Reid’s argument that the trial court erred in not

holding a hearing on his motion to withdraw as controlled adversely to him by Reid

I. Id. at 898 (3), citing Reid I, 339 Ga. App. at 774-775 (1). In Division 4, we

accepted Reid’s argument that he was entitled to an out-of-time appeal, noting that

Reid had already established “the prejudice prong of [his ineffectiveness] analysis”

and that his “undisputed evidence established that [his] trial counsel was deficient for

not informing him of his appellate rights.” (Citations omitted.) 344 Ga. App. at 899

(4). In Division 5, as to which two judges concurred specially, we noted that our

reversal of the denial of Reid’s motion for an out-of-time appeal effectively vacated

the trial court’s rulings on merger. Id. at 900 (5) (Miller, P. J.), 901 (McFadden, P. J.,

and McMillian, J., concurring specially). Reid did not seek a writ of certiorari from

the Supreme Court of Georgia as to Reid II.

5 On remand from Reid II, the trial court granted Reid’s motion for an out-of-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Roe v. Flores-Ortega
528 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court, 2000)
White v. State
594 S.E.2d 329 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2004)
Reid v. the State
792 S.E.2d 732 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2016)
REID v. the STATE.
812 S.E.2d 89 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2018)
MOBLEY v. the STATE.
812 S.E.2d 796 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2018)
Henderson v. State
743 S.E.2d 19 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2013)
Nazario v. State
746 S.E.2d 109 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Charleston Reid v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charleston-reid-v-state-gactapp-2019.