Background
Maurice Stevens was convicted in 2022 of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana, and obstruction of an officer. After the trial court denied his timely motion for new trial, Stevens timely appealed.
Stevens’s appellate counsel filed a brief in April 2026. The managing appellate attorney for the Georgia Public Defender Council later moved to remand, representing that the Georgia Supreme Court had found counsel’s briefs in other cases substantially deficient. The Court of Appeals reviewed the brief filed for Stevens and concluded that it also appeared substantially deficient and fell well below the court’s expectations under Court of Appeals Rule 25.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court to promptly determine how Stevens wishes to proceed with his first appeal of right. The trial court must determine whether Stevens wants to retain new appellate counsel, requires appointed counsel because he is indigent, or wishes to proceed pro se after a proper waiver of counsel.
The court relied on Stevens’s constitutional right to effective counsel on a first appeal of right, while noting its obligation to resolve the appeal within the Georgia Constitution’s two-term rule. Once the trial court makes the required determination, its clerk must send the order and any related additional record to the Court of Appeals, which will re-docket the appeal under a new case number.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal appellant’s first appeal of right includes a constitutional entitlement to effective appellate representation.
- An appellate court may remand an already docketed appeal to address apparent substantial deficiencies in counsel’s briefing.
- The trial court must determine whether the appellant will have retained counsel, appointed counsel, or make a valid waiver and proceed pro se.
Why It Matters
The order protects Stevens’s right to meaningful appellate representation without deciding the merits of his convictions or his appellate claims. It also illustrates the court’s effort to address deficient advocacy promptly while preserving compliance with Georgia’s constitutional deadline for deciding appeals.