Johnson v. Williams
Annotate this CaseAppellant, Warden Glen Johnson, challenged a habeas court’s order setting aside Larry Williams’ convictions for four counts of armed robbery, one count of terroristic threats, and one count of using a hoax device. In its order granting habeas relief, the court determined that Williams received ineffective assistance when his appellate counsel failed to allege ineffective assistance of trial counsel (1) during the plea bargaining process and (2) in failing to object to improper character evidence. The habeas court determined that because the evidence presented against Williams at trial was not strong, and the only witness identifying Williams was an officer who did not see Williams commit the robbery; the officer's testimony insinuated that Williams was a repeat offender and was harmful. The habeas court went on to find that had the issue been raised on appeal, there was a reasonable probability that Williams would have been granted a new trial, asserting that, under former OCGA 24-9-20 (b), bad character evidence was disallowed against a defendant unless the defendant testified, and Williams did not do so. For these reasons, the habeas court granted Williams’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of both claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Having reviewed the record, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the habeas court erred. The Supreme Court concluded Williams could not show the outcome of the plea process would have been more favorable to him had he received different legal advice from his trial counsel. And contrary to the habeas court's conclusions, the Supreme Court determined Williams could not show as a threshold matter that his trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to object to the officer’s testimony on the basis that it included harmful character evidence or that such objection would have been sustained. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the habeas court's judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.