Georgia Criminal Law Blog

Click here for the text of the opinion.

In a unanimous decision authored by Presiding Justice Carol W. Hunstein, the Supreme Court has reversed a Wilcox County Superior Court judge in Harden v. Johnson, S06A0425.
The Court found that upon the advice of counsel Howard Harden entered guilty pleas “to aggravated assault, false imprisonment, burglary, theft by taking, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.” Harden subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus and contended, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective. The trial court denied his petition and Harden appealed.
The Supreme Court has ruled “that the habeas court’s order must be reversed because the habeas court’s reliance on Harden’s statements of satisfaction with trial counsel, whether sworn or unsworn, was erroneous, as such statements are not relevant to a determination of an ineffective assistance claim.”

State v. Patel, (S06A0299) was decided by the Georgia Supreme Court on January 30, 2006.  Patel was a doctor that was charged with sexual battery.  His counsel advised him that he would lose his license to practice medicine for 6 months, that there would be a temporary suspension of his hospital privileges and adverse publicity.  Based on that he entered a nolo plea under the first offender’s act.

After the plea, Patel discovered that he was not going to be able to participate in any federal health care programs (Medicare and Medicaid) for a period of ten years.  He tried, unsuccessfully, to get that sanction lifted.  He then file a habeas petition and won.  The State appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed the habeas court’s grant of relief, allowing Patel to withdraw his plea and go to trial.

Patel had specifically asked about the effects of the plea on his practice in the long term and was told that there would be no long term consequences.  The habeas court had determined that basic research would have revealed the mandatory federal exclusion.  The Court also rejected the State’s argument that the attorneys were excellent, vigorous and gave accuate advice and should not be found to be ineffective for failing to answer one “collateral” question correctly.