Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Randolph v. State
Citations: 470 S.E.2d 300; 220 Ga. App. 769; 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 1634; 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 341Docket: A95A2726
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; March 15, 1996; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Keldin Randolph was convicted of two counts of selling cocaine and sentenced to life imprisonment. He did not file a motion for a new trial or a timely appeal, prompting him to request an out-of-time appeal, which the trial court denied. The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed this decision, finding that the trial court erred. Randolph's conviction stemmed from a jury trial in Hall County Superior Court on August 16, 1994, following a prior guilty plea for possession with intent to distribute cocaine two years earlier. This prior plea resulted in an automatic life sentence due to the First Offender Act, as Randolph did not complete the program successfully. Randolph claimed he asked his attorney about the appeal process post-sentencing, but the attorney was unresponsive. The trial court had informed Randolph of his right to appeal and the need to apply for appointed counsel if indigent, but Randolph did not make this application because he was unable to do so before being transferred to another facility. Additionally, his previous motions for trial transcripts and counsel were not acted upon. After being denied habeas corpus relief, he filed for an out-of-time appeal, which was denied by the trial court without reviewing the relevant transcript. The Court noted that Randolph's notice of appeal was timely and that their review was based on the records available at the time of the trial court's ruling. In Minton v. State, the court addressed Randolph's motion for an out-of-time appeal, where he claimed he expressed a desire to appeal during the trial and did not knowingly waive that right. He argued that his trial counsel led him to believe that an appeal was being properly initiated. The court found it erroneous to deny the motion without further inquiry, considering the serious nature of his life sentences. The case was reversed and remanded for the trial court to assess whether Randolph forfeited his right to appeal. Randolph cited Cochran v. State, arguing that he was not informed of the risks of proceeding without legal counsel; however, as he did not indicate a desire to represent himself, the Cochran requirements were deemed inapplicable. The court noted that there is no constitutional mandate for the record to reflect a knowing waiver of the right to appeal for a defendant to be precluded from appellate review. The transcript confirmed that Randolph was informed of his right to appeal and the provision of counsel if indigent. The court ultimately concluded that Randolph's argument lacked merit and reversed the judgment.