New appeal OK'd in '94 slaying case Web posted Tuesday, December 4, 2001 By Sandy Hodson Staff Writer An Augusta man serving a 25-year-old prison sentence has convinced a federal judge he did not have a fair appeal. Unless the state allows Charles J. Mitchell Jr. a new appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court by Jan. 29, Mr. Mitchell must be released from custody, U.S. District Chief Judge Dudley H. Bowen Jr. wrote in an order issued Thursday. Mr. Mitchell, acting as his own attorney, won his federal habeas corpus petition - a petition in which the fairness of incarceration may be challenged. Mr. Mitchell, now 27, has been in prison since 1995, when a Richmond County Superior Court jury convicted him and his brother Stephen in the Oct. 2, 1994, slaying of Danny Hucks, 22. A third man, Kyle Spells, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and received a five-year prison sentence that he has completed, according to the Georgia Department of Corrections Web site. According to court documents, Mr. Hucks was jealous and abusive toward his former girlfriend, whom Stephen Mitchell was dating. Mr. Hucks reportedly challenged Stephen Mitchell to a fight, threatening to kill him and the woman if Mr. Mitchell refused. The Mitchell brothers and Mr. Spells met with Mr. Hucks and others at the Sand Pits off New McDuffie Road. Mr. Hucks struck the first blow, but Stephen Mitchell shot and wounded Mr. Hucks and then the Mitchell brothers and Mr. Spells beat him up. According to court documents, Charles Mitchell was 30 to 50 feet away when his brother fired a second, fatal shotgun blast at Mr. Hucks' head. The federal judge agreed with Charles Mitchell that the attorney who represented him on his first appeal was ineffective. The attorney failed to argue that a previously determined case mirrored Mr. Mitchell's and that case ended with the charges thrown out. Judge Bowen, who reviewed the habeas petition and agreed with U.S. Magistrate Judge W. Leon Barfield's findings, determined the Georgia Supreme Court used the wrong standard in deciding whether the attorney's failure to argue this issue so prejudiced Mr. Mitchell that he was entitled to a new appeal.