The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a habeas corpus petition filed by Alexandro Huitron, who was convicted of felony murder and other crimes related to the death of his three-year-old daughter in 2010. The court's decision, issued Feb. 3, 2026, rejected Huitron's claims that his appellate counsel suffered from a conflict of interest that entitled him to a new direct appeal with different representation.
Justice McMillian authored the opinion in *Huitron v. Toby, Warden*, which addressed whether Huitron's appellate attorney's alleged conflict of interest warranted relief under habeas corpus proceedings. The court held that even if a conflict existed, the evidence presented at the habeas hearing supported the lower court's finding that it did not affect the outcome.
The underlying criminal case stems from events that occurred on May 31, 2010, involving the death of Esmerelda Gomez, Huitron's three-year-old daughter. In June 2011, a Clayton County grand jury jointly indicted Huitron and his wife, Margarita Gomez, on multiple serious charges including malice murder, three counts of felony murder, four counts of aggravated battery, two counts of aggravated assault, contributing to the deprivation of a minor, and six counts of cruelty to children.
The case proceeded to a joint jury trial in October and November 2012. The jury found Huitron guilty on seven of the 17 counts: felony murder predicated on aggravated assault (Count 3), felony murder predicated on contributing to the deprivation of a minor (Count 4), aggravated assault (Count 6), contributing to the deprivation of a minor (Count 7), aggravated assault (Count 11), and multiple counts of cruelty to children (Counts 12, 15-17). Two counts were nolle prossed during trial, and Huitron was acquitted on the remaining charges.
On Nov. 2, 2012, the trial court imposed severe sentences reflecting the gravity of the crimes. Huitron received life in prison without the possibility of parole for the felony murder conviction predicated on aggravated assault, along with a concurrent life sentence without parole for the second felony murder count. The court also sentenced him to a consecutive 20-year term for aggravated assault and a consecutive 10-year term for cruelty to children.
Following his conviction and direct appeal, Huitron filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions on grounds that his appellate counsel was ineffective due to an alleged conflict of interest. Under established legal precedent, defendants have the right to conflict-free representation during their appeals, and conflicts of interest can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
Huitron argued that because his appellate counsel allegedly suffered from a conflict of interest, he was entitled to a new direct appeal with different, conflict-free counsel. Such claims typically require defendants to demonstrate both that a conflict existed and that it adversely affected their representation.
The habeas court conducted an evidentiary hearing to examine Huitron's claims. During these proceedings, evidence was presented regarding the nature and extent of any alleged conflict of interest involving Huitron's appellate attorney. The habeas court ultimately denied the petition after finding that even if a conflict was present, it did not prejudice Huitron's case.
In affirming the habeas court's decision, the Georgia Supreme Court applied established standards for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on conflicts of interest. The court examined whether the alleged conflict created an actual impediment to the attorney's representation and whether it adversely affected the attorney's performance during the appellate process.
The Supreme Court's opinion indicates that while conflicts of interest can sometimes warrant relief, the specific circumstances of Huitron's case did not meet the threshold required for habeas relief. The court found that the evidence supported the lower court's conclusion that any alleged conflict did not materially impact the adequacy of Huitron's appellate representation.
This decision represents another step in the lengthy post-conviction litigation process that often follows serious criminal cases. Habeas corpus petitions serve as an important safeguard allowing defendants to challenge their convictions based on constitutional violations, including ineffective assistance of counsel.
The case highlights the high standards defendants must meet when challenging their convictions on ineffective assistance grounds, particularly when alleging conflicts of interest. Courts require clear evidence that any conflict actually impaired the attorney's ability to provide adequate representation.
Huitron's convictions remain in place following this decision, and he continues to serve his life sentence without the possibility of parole. The Georgia Supreme Court's ruling effectively closes this particular avenue of post-conviction relief, though other potential legal challenges may remain available depending on the specific circumstances of the case.
The opinion serves as a reminder of the serious consequences that can result from crimes against children and the thorough review process that follows such convictions through the appellate and post-conviction stages of criminal proceedings.