Nuckles v. State

── Nuckles v. State ── Court: Supreme Court of Georgia Date: April 21, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the Supreme Court of Georgia No. S26A0321 Trevor Lamont Nuckles v. The State On Appeal from the Superior Court of Cherokee County No. 12CR0911 Decided: April 21, 2026 LAGRUA, Justice. Trevor Lamont Nuckles appeals an order of the trial court denying his motion seeking post-judgment relief. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Nuck- les’s motion, and thus, we affirm. 1. Pertinent to this appeal, the record shows that Nuckles was indicted by a Cherokee County grand jury for malice murder, felony murder, and other crimes arising out of the shooting death of Nuckles’s girlfriend, Dejanirra Elrod. On December 12, 2012, Nuckles entered a negotiated guilty plea to felony murder, aggra- vated assault, cruelty to children, family violence, and other charges and was sentenced to life in prison plus five years, to run consecutively. On December 15, 2014, Nuckles filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Chattooga County (the “habeas court”), claiming, among other things, that his guilty plea was invalid because he did not enter it knowingly, freely, will- ingly, or intelligently. The habeas court denied Nuckles’s habeas petition, concluding that Nuckles failed to meet his burden to show that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and in- telligently made, given that the record reflected that Nuckles: (1) signed the “Petition to Enter a Plea of Guilty”; (2) testified that he understood the charges against him; (3) testified that he was advised of and understood he was waiving his rights under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 US 238 (1969); and (4) testified that he understood the possible sentences he could receive. The habeas court also noted that, when Nuckles’s plea counsel testified at the habeas hearing, plea counsel confirmed that Nuckles wanted to enter a guilty plea; that he never indicated he had changed his mind; and that, after a review of his constitutional rights, he agreed to waive those rights. Following the habeas court’s ruling, Nuckles filed an application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal to this Court, which the Court denied. See Nuckles v. Crickmar, Warden, S15H1435 (Ga. Nov. 15, 2018). On March 24, 2020, Nuckles returned to the trial court, where he filed a pro se motion to quash the indictment, alleging that his convictions were void because (1) the charges against him were not properly heard by the grand jury; (2) the indictment was not perfect in form and substance; and (3) the indictment was de- fective, as it was not properly presented to the grand jury and recorded in the minutes of the trial court. On May 7, 2020, the trial court denied Nuckles’s motion to quash the indictment as untimely, observing that Nuckles entered a guilty plea eight years before he sought to quash the indictment and, after enter- ing a guilty plea, Nuckles—who was entitled to timely pursue an appeal or move to withdraw his guilty p