Edwards v. Lewis

629 S.E.2d 248, 280 Ga. 441, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1356, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 256
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 25, 2006
DocketS06A0121
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 629 S.E.2d 248 (Edwards v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Edwards v. Lewis, 629 S.E.2d 248, 280 Ga. 441, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1356, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 256 (Ga. 2006).

Opinion

Melton, Justice.

Appellant Michael Edwards’ conviction for cocaine possession with intent to distribute and the resulting sentence was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in Edwards v. State, 253 Ga. App. 837 (560 SE2d 735) (2002). Edwards thereafter filed a petition for habeas relief asserting ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel.1 During the hearing, the habeas court indicated on the record that it believed Edwards had met his burden on the “significant issue” of trial counsel’s failure to challenge the jury array prior to the jury being empaneled.2 It instructed the State to file a brief within 30 days of the hearing to show why Edwards should not be granted habeas relief and advised Edwards’ habeas counsel that counsel would have three weeks to respond to the State’s argument raised in the supplemental brief. Rather than file a brief as instructed, the State waited over a year, and submitted to the court a “proposed order” that included a final adjudication on the jury array issue. The habeas court entered the order two days later. We granted Edwards’ application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the order to determine “whether the habeas court erred in entering the proposed order without providing the petitioner the opportunity to respond to the respondent’s ‘brief,’ as stated during the hearing.”

We conclude it was fundamentally unfair for the habeas court to decide Edwards was not entitled to habeas relief without allowing Edwards a meaningful opportunity to respond to the State’s allegation, albeit submitted in order form, regarding the jury array and the effectiveness of his counsel. See Ramos v. Terry, 279 Ga. 889 (1) (622 SE2d 339) (2005) (essence of due process is a meaningful opportunity to be heard). Accordingly, we vacate the habeas court’s judgment and remand this case with direction that the habeas court reconsider Edwards’ petition for writ of habeas corpus after Edwards has been given a meaningful opportunity to present the court with his response to the State’s allegations regarding his attorneys’ deficient performances in connection with the jury array.

Judgment vacated and case remanded.

All the Justices concur. [442]*442Decided April 25, 2006. Michael Edwards, pro se. Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Vonnetta L. Benjamin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Sarah L. Gerwig-Moore, amicus curiae.

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

Related

Eric Schumacher v. City of Roswell
809 S.E.2d 262 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2017)
Edwards v. Lewis
658 S.E.2d 116 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
629 S.E.2d 248, 280 Ga. 441, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1356, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-lewis-ga-2006.