Rutledge v. State

In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: March 15, 2022
S21A1036. RUTLEDGE v. THE STATE.
LAGRUA, Justice.
Appellant Marcus Rutledge pled guilty to malice murder in
connection with the April 2016 shooting death of Brian Williams.
Appellant filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal in the trial court,
which entered an order denying the motion. For the reasons
explained below, the trial court should have dismissed, rather than
denied, the motion, and we vacate the trial court’s order and remand
for entry of the appropriate dismissal order.
The record shows that in June 2016, Appellant was indicted for
malice murder, two counts of felony murder, aggravated battery,
aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony in connection. In February 2018, Appellant
entered a negotiated guilty plea to malice murder and was sentenced
to life in prison with the possibility of parole. The remaining counts
were nolle prossed. Appellant did not file a notice of appeal within
30 days from the judgment entered on his guilty plea. See OCGA §
5-6-38 (a).
In July 2019, Appellant filed pro se a motion for an out-of-time
appeal, alleging that he was entitled to an out-of-time appeal from
his guilty plea conviction if there was “a possible ground for appeal,
about which his lawyer failed to inform him.” The trial court
summarily denied the motion without a hearing. Appellant appealed
to this Court, and we determined that, under Collier v. State, 307
Ga. 363 (834 SE2d 769) (2019), Appellant was entitled to an
evidentiary hearing on his motion. See Rutledge v. State, 309 Ga.
508, 510 (2) (847 SE2d 143) (2020). We therefore vacated the trial
court’s order in part and remanded the case, directing the trial court
to conduct an evidentiary hearing and determine whether counsel’s
ineffective assistance was responsible for Appellant’s failure to
pursue a timely appeal. See id.1
1 We also affirmed part of the trial court’s judgment, holding that the
2
On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing where
Appellant was represented by counsel. In December 2020, the trial
court denied the motion for an out-of-time appeal on the merits, and
Appellant timely appealed to this Court.
On appeal, Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying
his motion for an out-of-time appeal because plea counsel rendered
ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of his right to appeal
from his guilty plea or to withdraw his guilty plea. See Collier v.
State, 307 Ga. 363, 371 (2) (834 SE2d 769) (2019) (“[W]hen a criminal
defendant demonstrates that his appeal of right has been frustrated
by a violation of constitutional magnitude, the failure to file a timely
notice of appeal may be excused and the constitutional violation
remedied by the provision of an out-of-time appeal.”)
However, today in Cook v. State, ___ Ga. at ___ (5) (___ SE2d
___) (Case No. S21A1270, decided March 15, 2022), we hold
that there was and is no legal authority for motions for
out-of-time appeal in trial courts and that the out-of-time
appeal procedure allowed in King [v. State, 233 Ga. 630trial court properly denied Appellant’s request for a copy of his case file and
transcript. See Rutledge, 309 Ga. at 510-511 (3).
3
(212 SE2d 807) (1975)] and Furgerson [v. State, 234 Ga.
594, 595 (216 SE2d 845) (1975)], approved in Rowland [v.
State, 264 Ga. 872, 874-875 (452 SE2d 756) (1995)], and
followed in other cases, is not a legally cognizable vehicle
for a convicted defendant to seek relief from alleged
constitutional violations. Our holding applies to this case
and to all cases that are currently on direct review or
otherwise not yet final.
Id. at ___ (slip op. at 82). Appellant therefore had no right to file a
motion for an out-of-time appeal in the trial court; his remedy, if
any, lies in habeas corpus. See id. at ___ (slip op. at 83). Accordingly,
we conclude the trial court should have dismissed, rather than
denied, the motion, and we vacate the trial court’s order and remand
for entry of the appropriate dismissal order. See id. at ___ (slip op.
at 82). See also Brooks v. State, 301 Ga. 748, 752 (2) (804 SE2d 1)
(2017) (“Because the trial court decided the merits of a motion it
lacked jurisdiction to decide, we vacate the trial court’s order and
remand with instructions to dismiss.”).
Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. All the
Justices concur, except Peterson, J., Bethel, and Ellington, JJ., who
dissent.
4
S21A1036. RUTLEDGE v. THE STATE.
PETERSON, Justice, dissenting.
In this case, the Court faithfully applies its holding in Cook v.
State, which also issues today. Because I dissent in Cook and that
decision is not yet final, I dissent here, too.
I am authorized to state that Justice Bethel and Justice
Ellington join in this dissent.
5