Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia held that a defendant may amend a timely filed motion for new trial at any time before the trial court’s final ruling, notwithstanding a scheduling-order deadline. The court vacated the order denying Victor Keyshawn Moten’s motion for new trial and remanded for consideration of his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant may amend a timely filed motion for new trial to add a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel at or before the motion hearing but before the trial court's ruling, notwithstanding a scheduling-order deadline.
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing to consider the proposed amendment and denying the original motion for new trial.
Holdings
- Under OCGA § 5-5-40 (b), a defendant may amend a timely filed motion for new trial at any time before the trial court's final ruling, even if the amendment is offered at or after the motion hearing.
- The trial court erred by refusing to consider Moten's proposed amendment because it was presented before the court's final ruling on the timely filed motion for new trial.
Key quotations
“Pursuant to OCGA § 5-5-40 (b), a defendant may amend a timely filed motion for new trial “any time on or before the ruling thereon.”” (3)
“Because OCGA § 5-5-40 (b) permits movants to amend a motion for new trial at any time before the trial court’s final ruling, the trial court erred in refusing to consider the ineffectiveness claim Moten sought to add to his motion for new trial.” (4)
Factual background
Moten was convicted of malice murder and related offenses arising from the shooting death of Juan Diaz Mendez. He timely filed a motion for new trial, and his appointed appellate counsel later attempted to amend that motion at the beginning of the hearing to assert ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court refused the amendment because it was not filed by the deadline in a scheduling order, even though the trial court had not yet ruled on the motion.
Procedural history
Moten was convicted after a joint jury trial and timely filed a boilerplate motion for new trial. Although the trial court's scheduling order imposed a deadline for amended motions, Moten presented an amended motion raising ineffective assistance at the beginning of the hearing and before the trial court ruled. The trial court refused to consider the amendment and denied the original motion for new trial. The Supreme Court of Georgia vacated that order and remanded for proceedings permitting the amendment.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the trial court to permit Moten to amend his motion for new trial and to conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion.