Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coulter v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

September 22, 2014


Murder. Bulloch Superior Court. Before Judge Turner.

Dustin J. Coulter, pro se.

Richard A. Mallard, District Attorney, Keith A. McIntyre, Assistant District Attorney, Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Oldham, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.


Page 714

Hines, Presiding Justice.

Prisoner Dustin James Coulter files this pro se appeal from the denial of his motion

Page 715

for an out-of-time appeal following the entry of his guilty pleas to two counts of malice murder. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On May 2, 2006, a Bulloch County grand jury indicted Coulter, his wife Alexandra Coulter, and their friend Jerry Easters, for two counts each of malice murder, armed robbery, and possession of a knife during the commission of murder in connection with the November 21, 2005 armed robberies and fatal stabbings of Jack Walton Futch and his wife, Paula Franklin Futch. The State gave notice of its intent to seek the death penalty for Coulter on May 26, 2006, and the prosecution proceeded under the Unified Appeal Procedure. The application for interim review was denied by this Court on February 12, 2008. Following the empaneling of a jury to try Coulter, on November 7, 2008, Coulter, pursuant to a negotiated agreement, pled guilty to two counts of malice murder and received concurrent life sentences; the remaining counts were nol prossed. More than three years later, on February 2, 2012, Coulter filed, inter alia, a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The trial court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction on February 10, 2012, as the motion was filed outside the term of court in which the guilty pleas were entered.

[295 Ga. 700] Again proceeding pro se, on December 9, 2013, Coulter filed the present motion for an out-of-time appeal, claiming that he was denied a direct appeal due to the ineffective assistance of his counsel and inadequate advice about his appellate rights. As to the issues that Coulter would raise in a granted direct appeal, he alleged that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because of counsel's failure to advise him of his " right to appeal," and that his guilty pleas were not intelligently and knowingly, and therefore voluntarily, entered as the record is silent regarding venue of the charged crimes, and because the superior court did not advise him of all of the Boykin [1] rights. The superior court denied the motion on December 13, 2013, after finding that Coulter failed to meet the requirements for granting an out-of-time appeal.[2]

1. The purpose of an out-of-time appeal is to address constitutional concerns that arise when a criminal defendant is denied a first appeal of right because the counsel to whom he was entitled to have assist him in that appeal was professionally deficient in failing to advise him to file a timely appeal, and that this deficiency caused him prejudice; therefore, an out-of-time appeal is appropriate when a direct appeal was not taken due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. Stephens v. State, 291 Ga. 837, 838 (1) (733 S.E.2d 266) (2012). However, that is not the end of the analysis because in order to have an out-of-time appeal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must have had the right to file a direct appeal, and a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered following a guilty plea is available to the defendant only if the issue on appeal is capable of resolution by reference to facts on the record. Id. Consequently, a determinative factor in the availability of an out-of-time appeal when the defendant has pled guilty is whether the appeal can be decided based upon the existing record; any question of the effectiveness of counsel is not reached unless it can be resolved by reference to facts on the record. Id.

Thus, the first inquiry is whether the issues that Coulter seeks to appeal can be resolved on the existing record because, if not, he would have had no right to file even a timely appeal, and therefore, would not be entitled to an out-of-time appeal. Id. If, indeed, his claims require expansion of the record, he would have to pursue them by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id. But, if in his motion [295 Ga. 701] for an out-of-time appeal, Coulter has raised an issue that can be determined on the existing record, concerns regarding the effectiveness of his

Page 716

counsel are reached, and he must show that his counsel was ineffective in not filing a timely appeal under the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674) (1984). Such test places the burden on a defendant to show both that his trial counsel provided deficient performance, and that but for such deficiency, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different, which in the present context means that an appeal would have been successful. Stephens v. State, supra at 838-839 (1). This Court need not address both parts of the Strickland test if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one; in fact, the Court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining any prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. Stephens v. State, supra at 839 (1). Consequently, if the claims that the defendant seeks to raise in an out-of-time appeal can be resolved against him on the face of the record, so that even a timely appeal would not have been successful, then the failure of plea counsel to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.