A Stone Mountain appellate attorney has resigned from the Georgia Public Defender Council after judges in multiple criminal cases rejected her work as substantially deficient, delaying appeals for at least 10 defendants across the state. Marilyn Tyler stepped down after the Georgia Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals of Georgia identified problems in briefs she filed on behalf of clients, prompting remands and a scramble to find replacement counsel.
Tyler admitted she struggled with her caseload at the council and accepted responsibility for her errors, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In her resignation, she took responsibility for the seriousness of her errors, telling the paper she was embarrassed and contrite. “My substandard performance is inexcusable and beneath the dignity of a competent appellate attorney,” Tyler wrote, per the newspaper's report.
The AJC's account detailed how the Georgia Supreme Court rejected Tyler's appeal arguments in multiple criminal cases and remanded matters involving deficient defense filings back to lower courts. Among the cases the paper cited, the newspaper's account notes that one remand involved a case tied to a new child sexual molestation charge.
A Pattern Documented in Case Filings
Court records support the broader picture painted by the AJC's reporting. In the case of Lawrence Fauntleroy, who was convicted in 2022 of aggravated sexual battery and other offenses, Tyler filed an appellate brief on his behalf on April 30, 2026, according to court documents hosted on app.midpage.ai. Months later, on Aug. 11, Cynthia Wright Harrison, the Georgia Public Defender Council's managing appellate attorney, asked the Court of Appeals to remand Fauntleroy's case to ensure he received effective appellate representation.
Harrison told the court that the Georgia Supreme Court had found all of the briefs Tyler submitted to that court to be substantially deficient, and that each case had been remanded to the appropriate superior court to determine whether new appellate counsel should be appointed. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that Tyler's brief in the Fauntleroy matter also appeared substantially deficient and fell well below the expectations the court holds for attorneys practicing before it. Judges ordered the case remanded so the trial court could promptly determine whether Fauntleroy would retain new counsel, receive appointed counsel if indigent, or proceed without a lawyer after waiving that right.
Other Cases Flagged for Drafting Issues
Fauntleroy's case was not an isolated flag in the court system. The Court of Appeals of Georgia filed an opinion in Charles Shirley v. State on Aug. 27, and legal-monitoring service Tracelaw reported four drafting and review issues in that document, according to its case analysis on trace.law. That review is a third-party analysis of the opinion itself rather than a finding issued by the Court of Appeals.
Tyler's name also surfaces in an earlier Georgia Supreme Court appeal. She represented Eric Green before the state's highest court in his appeal from convictions that included malice murder, according to filings published by caselaw.findlaw.com. In that case, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Green's convictions after ruling that his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim had not been preserved for review.
Council Response and Bar History
The Georgia Public Defender Council was connected to Tyler's appellate work, and the AJC's reporting discusses the council in that context. The council's role is part of the broader response to Tyler's work.
Available records list Tyler's license information. Tyler took responsibility for her own failures managing a weighty caseload at the council.
A Broader Concern in Appellate Practice
A Wyoming appellate-procedure document includes rules on briefs and failure to comply, according to a document posted by wyocourts.gov. A Nevada court docket entry is also cited as a comparison, per records reviewed on acis.nvcourts.gov.
A law-review discussion cited by via.library.depaul.edu is included as another comparison. In the Fauntleroy case, the trial court is to determine whether he will retain new counsel, receive appointed counsel if indigent, or proceed without a lawyer after waiving that right.
