Opinion
S23A0892
08-21-2023
CHANEY v. The STATE.
Chris Smith, GDC# 271137, Riverbend Correctional Facility, 196 Laying Farm Road, Milledgeville, Georgia 31061, for Appellant. Fani T. Willis, District Attorney, Kevin Christopher Armstrong, Senior A.D.A., Fulton County District Attorney's Office, 136 Pryor Street SW, Third Floor, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, for Appellee.
Chris Smith, GDC# 271137, Riverbend Correctional Facility, 196 Laying Farm Road, Milledgeville, Georgia 31061, for Appellant.
Fani T. Willis, District Attorney, Kevin Christopher Armstrong, Senior A.D.A., Fulton County District Attorney's Office, 136 Pryor Street SW, Third Floor, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, for Appellee.
Bethel, Justice. Sixteen years after his conviction for felony murder and other crimes, 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.
This Court reviewed and affirmed Chaney's convictions on direct appeal in Chaney v. State , 281 Ga. 481, 640 S.E.2d 37 (2007).
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 S.E.2d 758 (2022), which held that the out-of-time 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 S.E.2d 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 S.E.2d 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.