Shine v. State

── Shine 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. S26A0283 I’Kenyo Shine v. The State On Appeal from the Superior Court of Bibb County No. 05CR59165 Decided: April 21, 2026 LAND, Justice. In 2006, I’Kenyo Shine, with the assistance of counsel, en- tered a negotiated plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 US 25 (1970), to the felony murder of Jerome Hill. He received a life sentence and did not file a direct appeal. Since entering his plea, Shine has filed many different motions and actions in sev- eral different courts in an attempt to avoid the consequences of that plea, including several unsuccessful petitions for the writ of habeas corpus and at least two motions for out-of-time appeal. Although the procedural history of this case is long and at times difficult to follow, the central issue on this appeal is straightfor- ward: the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Shine’s 2025 motion for an out-of-time appeal. Shine argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for out-of-time appeal on the ground of res judicata, that the trial court erred in relying on habeas corpus orders that failed to apply controlling precedent, and that Bibb County Supe- rior Court Judge Howard Z. Simms erred in presiding over Shine’s motion for out-of-time appeal after he had previously recused himself from the case. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s ruling. In May 2005, a Bibb County grand jury indicted Shine on charges of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery, aggra- vated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. On March 6, 2006, Shine, who was represented by counsel, entered an Alford plea on the felony murder charge and was sentenced to life in prison. The remaining charges were nolle prossed. Shine’s numerous post-conviction filings include a 2008 state habeas petition that directly challenged his guilty plea. That petition alleged over 20 separate grounds for why he should be granted habeas relief, including claims that his plea was invalid and that his lawyer was ineffective. In addition, Shine specifically alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because plea counsel failed to file a motion to withdraw his plea and failed to advise him of his appellate rights. 1 The habeas court denied the petition on May 6, 2009, con- cluding that none of Shine’s claims had any merit. With respect to Shine’s claim that plea counsel failed to file a motion to with- draw his guilty plea, the habeas court found that plea counsel “properly advised [Shine] that she could not file a motion to with- draw in which she raised a claim of ineffectiveness against her- self.” With respect to Shine’s claim that counsel failed to advise him of his appellate rights, the habeas court found that counsel “did not violate any existing duty to advise a guilty plea of a non- existent