The Georgia Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal from District Attorney Daphne Totten’s office in a case involving the rescission of a plea agreement for the client of a political rival who ousted her from public office.
Background
The case involves a plea agreement that was reached ahead of the primary election back in May. The assistant district attorney handling the case at the time, Casey Blount, negotiated a plea deal with defense attorneys Joey Cowart and Robert Busbee in the case against Hansel Echevarria.
Echevarria was arrested by the Georgia Southern Police Department in December 2021 for an incident which allegedly occurred a little more than two years prior in September 2019. He was indicted in 2022 on four felony charges including Aggravated Sexual Battery, Aggravated Sodomy, Criminal Attempt to Commit Rape, and Aggravated Assault. Echevarria spent roughly a month in jail from December 2021 until January 2022 when Judge Lovett Bennett set a bond. Since then, the case has been pending while a plea deal was brokered and attorneys awaited a court date.
The negotiations for the plea occurred over several months and culminated with an agreement via a phone call the week before a scheduled court date on May 29.
But between the day of the phone call and the scheduled court date, District Attorney Daphne Totten suffered a devastating defeat in the Republican Primary, losing more than 60% of the vote and winning only two voting precincts in the four-county judicial circuit. She also returned to work the second day after the election to end the employment of the ADA in this case, offering him the chance to resign or be fired. Most notably, Totten’s loss was in a race against one of the defense attorneys in this case – Robert Busbee.
Following Blount’s exit from the office, Assistant District Attorney Barclay Black took over the case and rescinded the plea deal without notice and on the day of court, despite Blount relaying to him at the time of his departure that a plea had been reached in the case.
The decision by Black prompted pushback from the defense and attorneys sought for a judge to intervene, citing a host of case law about the enforceability of pleas once an agreement has been reached.
Blount testified that the agreement had the blessing of both the alleged victim in the case and his boss, District Attorney Daphne Totten.
During the hearing before Judge Lovett Bennett Jr. on July 9, Black argued that the state should not be required to adhere to the plea agreement because he had presented a much tougher agreement a year and a half prior, that Blount did not have the authority to negotiate the agreement that he did, and even if Blount did, that it was not a binding contract, as the defense alleged. Black stopped short of calling Blount a liar during cross examination, but attempted to challenge Blount’s credibility, his ethical standards, and his work product over the course of his tenure at the office.
Blount contrarily testified that the agreement had the blessing of both the alleged victim in the case and his boss, District Attorney Daphne Totten. He stated repeatedly that an agreement had been reached and that he informed Black, Totten, and others of the agreement before his departure.
You can read more about the background of the negotiations and the hearing on the matter here.
In July 2024, Superior Court Judge Lovett Bennett ruled that the district attorney’s office must honor a plea agreement arranged ahead of the election.
Forty-five minutes after Judge Bennett filed the Order on July 19, Black filed a notice of intent to appeal. The case has been on hold ever since.
Read the specifics of the judge’s Order here.
Georgia Court of Appeals
The Georgia Court of Appeals made a decision on the case without even receiving a response brief from defense attorneys.
In an Order issued Wednesday, the Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal filed by Black in its entirety, citing a lack of jurisdiction.
From the Order:
“In its notice of appeal, the State appears to claim that it is entitled to a direct appeal from the trial court’s order by citing generally to OCGA 5-7-1 and certain case law recognizing the State’s right to appeal from an illegal judgment. However, “the State is permitted to take appeals in criminal cases only to the extent expressly authorized by statute.”…Notably, “the State may not appeal any issue in a criminal case, whether by direct or discretionary appeal, unless that issue is listed in OCGA 5-7-1.”…
Here, the State does not direct us to any provision of OCGA 5-7-1 authorizing this appeal, nor do we find any. Moreover, the State has not shown that the order was illegal or otherwise void. Because the State’s appeal is not authorized under OCGA 5-7-1, we lack jurisdiction. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.”
