Politics
Georgia lawmakers examine gaps in appointed lawyers’ appeals work
Georgia’s Supreme Court has sharply criticized the work of state-appointed lawyers in criminal appeals, while lawmakers review the system responsible for representing people who cannot afford counsel. The cases have raised questions about staffing, oversight and whether defendants receive meaningful legal representation after conviction.
Georgia’s highest court upheld Dontravious Mahone’s murder convictions and life sentence earlier this year, but sharply criticized the state-appointed lawyer who handled his appeal. The attorney argued an irrelevant charge, failed to address important parts of the case and submitted a brief containing garbled text, the court said.
The justices called the errors “confounding and inexcusable.” They also noted that they had warned the same lawyer twice in 2025 about inadequate work in other murder appeals.
Mahone’s case has become part of a wider examination by Georgia lawmakers of how indigent defendants are represented after conviction. At a legislative committee meeting, Georgia Supreme Court Justice Nels Peterson said the existing situation was “not acceptable.” Court criticism has extended to multiple appeals handled by attorneys working for the state or under state contracts.
The Georgia Public Defender Council, which oversees public defense, has acknowledged staffing challenges in its appellate division. Executive Director Omotayo Alli said the agency is recruiting staff attorneys to fill several vacancies. She has also cautioned lawmakers that some impressions about the office may be based on incomplete or inaccurate information, and said the division’s work should be judged using the public record.
The debate reflects a basic tension in the appeals system: people who cannot pay for private counsel depend on public defenders or contract lawyers to identify legal errors and present them to the courts. When those filings are incomplete or poorly prepared, defendants may lose an important opportunity to challenge their convictions.
Lawyers and officials have pointed to heavy caseloads, vacancies and compensation as possible contributors to the problem. The council is considering changes that could include increasing staffing and improving recruitment and retention. Some advocates have also raised the possibility of a separate appellate office, while Alli has argued that the state should build on its existing statewide structure and strengthen accountability within it.
The legislative review comes as the Supreme Court’s repeated admonitions put a spotlight on whether the state’s current approach can consistently provide adequate representation. For people serving long sentences, the quality of an appeal can carry consequences that extend far beyond the courtroom.