Tompkins v. Hall

5 Citing cases

  1. Herrington v. Laughlin

    CV 116-201 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 13, 2017)

    Here, the state habeas courts are available to hear Petitioner's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims. See, e.g., Tompkins v. Hall, 728 S.E.2d 621, 623 (Ga. 2012) (discussing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims in context of state habeas petition); Brown v. Baskin, 690 S.E.2d 822, 823-25 (Ga. 2010) (affirming state habeas corpus relief based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel). Nothing in the record suggests Petitioner would be prevented from pursuing relief on his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims in the state habeas courts, and such exhaustion will allow for factual development of the claims and provide the state courts the first opportunity to correct any alleged constitutional violations.

  2. Hoehn v. Allen

    CV 114-093 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2014)

    Here, the state habeas courts are available to hear Petitioner's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims. See, e.g., Tompkins v. Hall, 728 S.E.2d 621, 623 (Ga. 2012) (discussing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims in context of state habeas petition); Brown v. Baskin, 690 S.E.2d 822, 823-25 (Ga. 2010) (affirming state habeas corpus relief based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel). Nothing in the record suggests Petitioner would be prevented from pursuing relief on his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims in the state habeas courts, and such exhaustion will, as Respondent describes, provide "a forum for factual development of the claims in the state courts and giv[e] the state courts the first opportunity to correct any alleged constitutional violations."

  3. Gill v. Zanders

    No. 5:15-CV-427 (M.D. Ga. Jul. 22, 2016)

    Here, the state habeas courts are available to hear Petitioner's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims. See, e.g., Tompkins v. Hall, 728 S.E.2d 621, 623 (Ga. 2012) (discussing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims in context of state habeas petition); Brown v. Baskin, 690 S.E.2d 822, 823-25 (Ga. 2010) (affirming state habeas corpus relief based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel). Nothing in the record suggests Petitioner would be prevented from pursuing relief on his claims in the state habeas proceedings, and Petitioner should pursue those available remedies before filing a federal habeas petition.

  4. Jones v. State

    294 Ga. 501 (Ga. 2014)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that a bare assertion of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in an amended new trial motion, "with no additional detail or argument," was insufficient to raise such a claim and preserve it for review on appeal

    Not surprisingly, the trial court's order says nothing about this claim. Because Appellant did not raise this claim in his motion for new trial or at the hearing and did not obtain a ruling on it from the trial court, he clearly did not preserve it for review on appeal. See Tompkins v. Hall, 291 Ga. 224, 226, 728 S.E.2d 621 (2012) (holding that the defendant waived review of ineffective assistance claims when his motion for new trial contained only “a blank claim with absolutely no specificity”); Simmons v. State, 281 Ga. 437, 438, 637 S.E.2d 709 (2006) (holding that the defendant waived his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim where appellate counsel did not raise the claim in the amended motion for new trial or address the issue at the motion for new trial hearing). In any event, Appellant's claim is meritless.

  5. Sullivan v. Kemp

    293 Ga. 770 (Ga. 2013)   Cited 5 times

    With respect to the issue of prejudice to the defense, Sullivan must show a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of his appeal would have been different, but for appellate counsel's error. See Tompkins v. Hall, 291 Ga. 224, 227, 728 S.E.2d 621 (2012). “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”