Clark v. State

Clark v. State, 305 Ga. 631 (Ga. 2019) · Supreme Court of Georgia · April 15, 2019

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that a second motion for an out-of-time appeal is barred by res judicata when the first motion was denied on the merits. The defendant failed to file a timely appeal despite being informed of his rights, and his subsequent motion for an out-of-time appeal was rejected. The court affirmed the denial of the second motion, ruling that the issue of entitlement to an out-of-time appeal could not be relitigated. This case reinforces the preclusive effect of prior adjudications on successive motions for out-of-time appeals.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia
Writing for the Court
Blackwell
Jurisdiction
Georgia
Decision date
April 15, 2019
Procedural posture
Appeal from denial of second motion for out-of-time appeal
Standard of review
de novo (res judicata is a question of law)
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Sherman Clark v. The State
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureres judicataappellate procedure

Practice areas

Criminal LawAppellate Practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Clark's second motion for out-of-time appeal based on res judicata.

Holdings

  1. The evidence was sufficient because a rational jury could find Clark guilty as a party to the crimes based on his conduct and shared criminal intent with Kelly.
  2. The trial court applied the correct totality-of-the-circumstances test, and Clark's claim fails.
  3. No plain error because the jury charge as a whole adequately instructed on criminal intent and parties to a crime.
  4. Clark failed to establish prejudice because the jury charge as a whole adequately covered the concepts, so there is no reasonable probability of a different outcome.
  5. Counsel did not perform deficiently because a demurrer would have been meritless; the indictment was sufficient.
  6. The totality-of-the-circumstances test applies, and trial courts should consider all relevant circumstances, not a fixed set of nine factors.

Key quotations

Res judicata precludes re-litigation of claims where the cause of action and the parties or their privies are identical and the claim was previously adjudicated on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. (632)
the trial court was precluded from revisiting the issue of [Clark]'s entitlement to an out-of-time appeal of his convictions, [and] it did not err in denying the [second] motion for an out-of-time appeal. (632)

Factual background

Clark was convicted of murder and aggravated assault in March 2005. At sentencing, the trial court informed him of the 30-day appeal deadline and his right to appointed counsel. Clark filed a motion for a trial transcript but did not file a notice of appeal or request counsel. He later sought an extension and then an out-of-time appeal, which was denied. He filed a second out-of-time appeal in 2017.

Procedural history

Clark was convicted and sentenced in March 2005. He did not file a timely appeal. In 2006, he filed an untimely motion for extension of time. In 2007, he filed his first motion for out-of-time appeal, which was denied, and he did not appeal. In 2017, he filed a second motion for out-of-time appeal, which was denied on res judicata grounds.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…