Chaney v. State ( 2023 )

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: August 21, 2023
S23A0892. CHANEY v. THE STATE.
BETHEL, Justice.
Sixteen years after his conviction for felony murder and other
crimes, 1 Appellant James Chaney filed an extraordinary motion for
new trial in the trial court, raising claims of ineffective assistance of
trial counsel. The trial court dismissed the motion, and Chaney now
appeals. For reasons different than those relied upon by the trial
court, we affirm.
It appears that the trial court construed Chaney’s motion as
one seeking an out-of-time appeal, and in dismissing the motion, the
trial court relied on this Court’s decision in Cook v. State, 313 Ga.
471, 506 (5) (870 SE2d 758) (2022), which held that the out-of-time
1 This
Court reviewed and affirmed Chaney’s convictions on direct
appeal in Chaney v. State, 281 Ga. 481 (640 SE2d 37) (2007).
appeal procedure “is not a legally cognizable vehicle for a convicted
defendant to seek relief for alleged constitutional violations.” But an
extraordinary motion for new trial is distinct from an out-of-time
appeal, and, therefore, the trial court’s reliance on Cook was
misplaced. See Bohannon v. State, 262 Ga. 697, 698 (425 SE2d 653)
(1993). Nevertheless, Chaney’s motion was properly dismissed.
Chaney’s extraordinary motion for new trial raised only claims
of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. An extraordinary motion for
new trial, however, is an improper vehicle for such claims because
an adequate alternative remedy exists in the form of habeas corpus.
Mitchum v. State, 306 Ga. 878, 887 (2) (834 SE2d 65) (2019)
(“Because habeas corpus provided an adequate remedy, an
extraordinary motion for new trial was not the appropriate vehicle
for [appellant] to pursue his claims, [including claims of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel,] and the trial court should have
dismissed the motion.”). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s
dismissal of Chaney’s extraordinary motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
2