--- title: Chaney v. State collection: opinions id: S23A0892 cite_as: Chaney v. State, 317 Ga. 181 (2023) canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A0892 md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A0892.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A0892/text source_url: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10680061/chaney-v-state/ date: 2023-08-21 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/2023.md previous: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A0647.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A0710.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md omitted: opinion extras omitted_chars: 2117 omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A0892.md?full=1 docket: S23A0892 citation: 317 Ga. 181 court: Supreme Court of Georgia case_type: criminal appeal authoring_justice: Bethel disposition: Affirmed vote: All the Justices concur word_count: 356 date_filed_source: courtlistener citations: - 891 S.E.2d 775 record_source: courtlistener legal_areas: - criminal law - civil procedure upstream_id: "10680061" summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5 --- # Chaney v. State Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S23A0892, filed 2023-08-21, 317 Ga. 181. ## Opinion 317 Ga. 181 FINAL COPY S23A0892. CHANEY v. THE STATE. BETHEL, Justice. Sixteen years after his conviction for felony murder and other crimes,1 Appellant James Chaney filed an extraordinary motion for new trial in the trial court, raising claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court dismissed the motion, and Chaney now appeals. For reasons different than those relied upon by the trial court, we affirm. It appears that the trial court construed Chaney’s motion as one seeking an out-of-time appeal, and in dismissing the motion, the trial court relied on this Court’s decision in Cook v. State, 313 Ga. 471, 506 (5) (870 SE2d 758) (2022), which held that the out-of-time appeal procedure “is not a legally cognizable vehicle for a convicted defendant to seek relief for alleged constitutional violations.” But an 1 This Court reviewed and affirmed Chaney’s convictions on direct appeal in Chaney v. State, 281 Ga. 481 (640 SE2d 37) (2007). extraordinary motion for new trial is distinct from an out-of-time appeal, and, therefore, the trial court’s reliance on Cook was misplaced. See Bohannon v. State, 262 Ga. 697, 698 (425 SE2d 653) (1993). Nevertheless, Chaney’s motion was properly dismissed. Chaney’s extraordinary motion for new trial raised only claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. An extraordinary motion for new trial, however, is an improper vehicle for such claims because an adequate alternative remedy exists in the form of habeas corpus. Mitchum v. State, 306 Ga. 878, 887 (2) (834 SE2d 65) (2019) (“[B]ecause habeas corpus provided an adequate remedy, an extraordinary motion for new trial was not the appropriate vehicle for [appellant] to pursue his claims, [including claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel,] and the trial court should have dismissed the motion.”). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Chaney’s extraordinary motion for new trial. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. Decided August 21, 2023. Murder. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Ingram. James Chaney, pro se. Fani T. Willis, District Attorney, Kevin C. Armstrong, Assistant District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Beth A. Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior 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 upheld the dismissal of a Fulton County man's extraordinary motion for new trial, ruling that claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised through habeas corpus, not this procedure. ### Plain-language summary James Chaney was convicted of felony murder and other crimes, and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed his convictions on direct appeal back in 2007. Sixteen years later, Chaney filed what is called an extraordinary motion for new trial, a special request asking the trial court to reconsider his case, arguing that his original trial lawyer had provided ineffective assistance. The trial court dismissed the motion, but it mistakenly treated the filing as a request for an out-of-time appeal (a late appeal filed after the normal deadline) and relied on the wrong legal precedent to reject it. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed the motion should be dismissed, but for a different reason: claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel cannot be raised in an extraordinary motion for new trial because habeas corpus, a separate legal challenge to the legality of someone's imprisonment, already provides an adequate way to raise such claims. ### Holding, as summarized The court held that an extraordinary motion for new trial is not a proper vehicle for claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because habeas corpus already provides an adequate remedy for such claims, so the trial court correctly dismissed the motion, even though it gave the wrong reason. ### Disposition Affirmed. All the Justices concur. ### Why it matters The ruling clarifies for Georgia inmates and defense lawyers that claims their trial lawyer performed poorly must go through a habeas corpus proceeding, not an extraordinary motion for new trial, guiding how and where such claims should be filed going forward. > The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions, and the CourtListener opinion records (2,117 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A0892.md?full=1