---
title: Rawls v. State
collection: opinions
id: S22A0134
cite_as: Rawls v. State, 313 Ga. 590 (2022)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22A0134
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22A0134.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22A0134/text
source_url: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10679912/rawls-v-state/
date: 2022-04-19
status: published
corpus_version: opinions-2026-09-14
license: Public record of the Supreme Court of Georgia, via CourtListener and the court's own website; see about.md
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/2022.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22A0348.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22A0079.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md
omitted: opinion extras
omitted_chars: 1793
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22A0134.md?full=1
docket: S22A0134
citation: 313 Ga. 590
court: Supreme Court of Georgia
case_type: criminal appeal
authoring_justice: Bethel
disposition: Appeal dismissed as moot
vote: All the Justices concur
word_count: 1429
date_filed_source: courtlistener
citations:
  - 872 S.E.2d 272
record_source: courtlistener
legal_areas:
  - criminal law
  - civil procedure
upstream_id: "10679912"
summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5
---

# Rawls v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S22A0134, filed 2022-04-19, 313 Ga. 590.

## Opinion

313 Ga. 590 FINAL COPY

S22A0134. RAWLS v. THE STATE.

BETHEL, Justice.

Following our grant of his application for discretionary appeal, Donnel Rawls appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion seeking a copy of his trial transcripts at public expense. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

At a jury trial held in Clayton County Superior Court in October 2016, Rawls was convicted of malice murder and feticide and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In conjunction with his direct appeal, on January 17, 2017, Rawls’s appellate counsel, a public defender, filed a motion for the trial court to produce transcripts of the trial and related proceedings at public expense. On January 23, the trial court granted the motion and instructed the court reporter to prepare the requested materials and provide them to Rawls’s appellate counsel. Rawls’s appellate counsel received the transcripts from the court reporter and represented Rawls in his direct appeal, in which this Court affirmed his convictions.1 See Rawls v. State, 310 Ga. 209 (850 SE2d 90) (2020).

On May 17, 2021, Rawls filed a pro se motion in the trial court seeking to have transcripts of his trial proceedings prepared at public expense. That motion requested that the court reporter prepare transcripts of his trial and the pre- and post-trial proceedings in the case and that those documents be provided to him in both print and electronic formats. Rawls’s motion included an affidavit in which he stated that he had “on several occasions already requested copies of his transcripts . . . regarding his appellate efforts to reverse his own wrongful conviction for a murder.” He further stated that he had written to the Clayton County Superior Court Clerk, two judges of the Clayton County Superior Court, the District Attorney, the Public Defender, the Clerk of this Court, and the State Bar of Georgia to request the

1 The parties do not dispute this point. We also note that the brief filed in Rawls’s direct appeal by his appellate counsel contains numerous citations to the record of his trial proceedings. The parties agree that Rawls’s counsel and the public defender’s office lost the copy of Rawls’s trial transcripts that were prepared at public expense in 2017.

transcripts but that he had not been provided with them. He added that he had experienced “a deliberate thwarting of his appellate effort as the transcripts are being requested specifically for [his] preparations for a habeas corpus proceeding with substantial time bars and are thusly needed.” The trial court denied the motion in a summary order on June 23, 2021.

That day, Rawls filed a pro se application for discretionary appeal, which this Court granted on August 23, 2021. Rawls filed a notice of appeal on August 31, 2021.2 Rawls is represented in this

2 Prior to the filing of the notice of appeal, on July 23, 2021, Rawls filed a “Motion for the Clayton Public Defender To Be Ordered Without Delay to Provide Defendant With Free Copy of Transcript Pursuant [to] O.C.G.A. 17-8- 5 (a),” which made requests similar to those made in the May 17 motion. In an affidavit attached to that motion, Rawls stated that he was “seeking transcripts in order to prepare his habeas corpus petition.” He further stated that, in preparation for his direct appeal, he was appointed appellate counsel and that appellate counsel had received written and electronic versions of transcripts of his trial and all pre- and post-trial proceedings. He added that appellate counsel had “failed to honor” his “numerous requests” for his transcripts during the direct appeal process. He went on to state that although the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions in October 2020, he did not learn of this Court’s decision until January 2021 when he was contacted by the public defender’s office. At that time, Rawls learned that his appellate counsel had “suddenly left his post” at the public defender’s office, and Rawls requested his transcripts from that office. Rawls stated that, as of the date of that filing, he had not been provided with a copy of his transcripts.

appeal by the Mercer Habeas Project from the Mercer University School of Law.3

On appeal, Rawls contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion. In its response brief filed on November 30, 2021, the State indicated to this Court that it had shared its digital copy of the transcripts with Rawls’s current appellate counsel. Rawls filed a reply brief on December 17, 2021, in which he indicated that his current counsel had received from the State digitized PDF versions of four volumes of a trial transcript, a sentencing transcript, and a motion for new trial transcript from his trial. His current counsel represented that printed versions of those documents were provided to Rawls. Rawls asserted in his brief, however, that the materials provided by the State did not represent a complete copy of all transcripts pertaining to the proceedings in his case. Rawls noted that the trial court’s docket also referenced an arraignment and two other pre-trial proceedings.

3 We thank the faculty and students for their representation of Rawls in this appeal.

At oral argument before this Court on January 19, 2022, Rawls again claimed that there may exist transcripts of pre-trial proceedings, including his arraignment, that could be useful to him in preparing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In response, the State’s counsel represented to this Court that it had provided Rawls’s current appellate counsel with all transcripts from Rawls’s trial that actually exist and that were provided to his former appellate counsel in 2017 in conjunction with his direct appeal.4 Rawls filed a post-argument letter that did not dispute the State’s representation.

Based on this Court’s review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the representations of counsel at oral argument, it appears that Rawls has obtained the relief he sought. Rawls’s appeal has

4 In response to questions regarding the existence of other transcripts that had not been provided to Rawls’s current appellate counsel, counsel for the State stated that “there is no other transcript in the record. . . . The entirety of the record was sent up [on direct appeal], and that did not include any transcript of an arraignment.” Counsel for the State indicated that she had made this representation to Rawls’s current appellate counsel when she provided the available transcripts and again asserted that there is no portion of the transcripts of Rawls’s trial proceedings that exists that was not given to Rawls’s current appellate counsel.

therefore become moot and must be dismissed.

[T]he dismissal of a moot appeal is mandatory. An appeal is dismissed when “the questions presented have become moot.” OCGA § 5-6-48 (b) (3). A case is moot when its resolution would amount to the determination of an abstract question not arising upon existing facts or rights, and the appellate court is not required to retain a moot case and decide it because a party might possibly derive some future benefit from a favorable adjudication on an abstract question. (Citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Scarbrough Group v. Worley, 290 Ga. 234, 236 (719 SE2d 430) (2011). “This court will upon its own motion dismiss an appeal where it affirmatively appears that a decision would be of no benefit to the complaining party.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Chastain v. Baker, 255 Ga. 432, 433 (339 SE2d 241) (1986).

Moreover, although the issue of what a convicted defendant must demonstrate in order to receive a copy of his trial transcripts at public expense in connection with a prospective filing for post- conviction relief “is capable of repetition, it would not necessarily evade review[.]” Hopkins v. Hamby Corp., 273 Ga. 19, 19 (538 SE2d 37) (2000). Compare Collins v. Lombard Corp., 270 Ga. 120, 122 (1) (508 SE2d 653) (1998) (“[A] case which contains an issue that is capable of repetition yet evades review is not moot because a decision in such a case would be based on existing facts or rights which affect, if not the immediate parties, an existing class of sufferers.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). Therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed as moot.

Appeal dismissed. All the Justices concur.

Decided April 19, 2022.

Transcripts. Clayton Superior Court. Before Judge Mack. Brian S. Kammer, for appellant.

Tasha M. Mosley, District Attorney, Karen S. Barbour, Assistant District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen L. McCanless, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

## Summaries written by Georgia Commons

The following was written by claude-sonnet-5 from the opinion above and is not part of the court's opinion. Quote the opinion, not the summary.

The Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed as moot a man's appeal seeking free trial transcripts, finding that the State had already provided him with all the transcripts that actually exist.

### Plain-language summary

Donnel Rawls was convicted of malice murder and feticide in Clayton County and sentenced to life without parole. After his direct appeal failed, he asked the trial court to order free copies of his trial transcripts, saying he needed them to prepare a habeas corpus petition challenging his imprisonment, and that his prior appellate lawyer had lost the copy given to her years earlier. The trial court denied his request, and Rawls appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
While the appeal was pending, the State gave Rawls's new lawyers digital and printed copies of all the trial, sentencing, and motion-for-new-trial transcripts. Rawls argued other transcripts, like one from his arraignment, might still be missing, but the State told the court no such transcripts exist. Because Rawls had already gotten what he was asking for, the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed the appeal as moot rather than deciding the underlying legal question.

### Holding, as summarized

An appeal must be dismissed as moot when the appellant has already obtained the relief he sought, and the Supreme Court of Georgia found that Rawls had received all the trial transcripts that exist, so no live controversy remained for it to resolve.

### Disposition

Appeal dismissed as moot. All the Justices concur.

### Why it matters

The ruling shows that once the State turns over available trial records to a defendant preparing a habeas petition, courts will not decide disputes over transcript access that have already been resolved, leaving broader questions about transcript rights for future cases.

> The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions, and the CourtListener opinion records (1,793 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22A0134.md?full=1