Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
WALTON ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
In 2019, Nestle Purina Petcare Company sought to switch its electric supplier for its facility in Hartwell, Georgia, from Georgia Power Company to Walton Electric Membership Corporation. Georgia Power objected, citing the Territorial Electric Service Act, arguing that the premises were not new and did not meet the requirements to switch suppliers. Georgia Power contended that the premises had long been a manufacturing and warehousing facility and that the changes made by Nestle did not amount to the premises being "destroyed or dismantled" as required by the Act.The Georgia Public Service Commission (the "Commission") ruled in favor of Nestle, concluding that the premises were "destroyed or dismantled" and not "reconstructed in substantial kind," allowing Nestle to switch to Walton EMC. The superior court reversed this decision, finding that the premises were not "destroyed or dismantled" and that the modifications did not meet the statutory requirements. The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's decision.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and concluded that the appropriate standard of review was abuse of discretion. The Court determined that the Commission's decision should have been upheld. The Court held that "destroyed or dismantled" does not require complete destruction but can include substantial dismantling or stripping away of significant components. The Court also found that the premises were not "reconstructed in substantial kind" due to the significant differences in structure and function between the old and new facilities. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, allowing Nestle to switch its electric supplier to Walton EMC. View "WALTON ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law
WILSON v. THE STATE
Shamar Dequan Wilson was convicted for his involvement in the robbery and death of Rashawn Mays and the attempted armed robbery of Adrian Bennett. The crimes occurred on January 22, 2020. Wilson was indicted by a Lowndes County grand jury on April 30, 2021, and charged with felony murder, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. At his trial in January 2022, the jury found Wilson guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole for felony murder, along with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for the other charges. Wilson filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and subsequently appealed.Wilson's appeal focused on the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions of attempted armed robbery and the associated possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He argued that the evidence did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for these specific counts. The trial court had denied his motion for a new trial, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that the evidence was sufficient to support Wilson's convictions. The court noted that Bennett's testimony indicated Wilson pointed a gun at him and demanded money, which Bennett interpreted as a demand for his own money. Although Wilson did not take Bennett's wallet and phone, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could infer that Wilson's intent was to avoid being seen by Bennett. Therefore, the court affirmed Wilson's convictions for attempted armed robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The judgment was affirmed, and all justices concurred. View "WILSON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
GARCIA-SOLIS v. THE STATE
Hector Garcia-Solis was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Hall County Deputy Sheriff Blane Dixon on July 7, 2019. Garcia-Solis, along with co-defendants Brayan Cruz, Eric Velazquez, and London Clements, was involved in a series of burglaries and thefts leading up to the fatal shooting. The group stole vehicles and firearms, and during a police chase, Garcia-Solis shot and killed Deputy Dixon. Garcia-Solis was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus additional consecutive years for other charges.The case was initially reviewed by a Hall County grand jury, which indicted Garcia-Solis and his co-defendants on multiple counts, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and various theft-related charges. Cruz pleaded guilty to some charges and testified for the State. Garcia-Solis, Velazquez, and Clements were tried together, and the jury found Garcia-Solis guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced him to life without parole for malice murder and additional consecutive years for other charges. Garcia-Solis filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed Garcia-Solis's convictions and sentences. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the malice murder conviction, as Garcia-Solis intentionally shot Deputy Dixon, demonstrating an "abandoned and malignant heart." The court also found no merit in Garcia-Solis's claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a change of venue due to pretrial publicity, as the jury selection process did not show actual prejudice. Lastly, the court upheld the life without parole sentence, noting that the trial court properly considered Garcia-Solis's age and the egregious nature of his crimes. View "GARCIA-SOLIS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
NELSON v. STRICKLAND
Henry Strickland contested the results of a city commissioner election in Waycross, Georgia, after losing to Alvin Nelson. Strickland argued that the election used an outdated 2005 map of voting districts instead of the correct 2011 map, resulting in 32 voters casting ballots in the wrong districts. The trial court agreed, finding that the use of the 2005 map could have affected the election outcome, which Nelson won by 18 votes. Consequently, the court vacated the election and ordered a new one to be held in November 2024 using the 2011 map.The trial court denied Nelson's motion to dismiss Strickland's petition for insufficient process and service of process and rejected Nelson's argument that the petition should be dismissed for lack of expeditious pursuit. The court found irregularities in the election due to the use of the 2005 map and ordered a new election. Nelson appealed the trial court's decision, and the Supreme Court of Georgia granted his request for a stay pending the appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the 2011 map was never effective because the required filings with the Secretary of State and the clerk of the superior court, as mandated by OCGA § 36-35-5, were never made. Since the 2011 map was not effective at the time of the election, there was no basis for the trial court's conclusion that enough illegal or irregular votes were counted to change or cast doubt on the election outcome. Therefore, Strickland's petition was rejected, and the trial court's order vacating the election was reversed. View "NELSON v. STRICKLAND" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Civil Procedure, Election Law
BRUNDAGE v. THE STATE
Rondriques Brundage was convicted of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony for the shooting death of Rodrell Matthews. The incident occurred on July 10, 2018, and Brundage was indicted on multiple charges, including malice murder and aggravated assault. At trial, Brundage was found not guilty of malice murder, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, and aggravated assault, but guilty of felony murder predicated on possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and concealing the death of another. He was sentenced to life without parole for felony murder, plus additional consecutive prison terms for the other charges.Brundage filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied except for the merger of the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon count into the felony murder count. He appealed, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State's incorrect explanation of self-defense as it applied to felony murder predicated on felon-in-possession and for failing to request a jury charge on the defense of habitation.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and agreed with Brundage that his trial counsel was deficient for not objecting to the State's incorrect explanation of self-defense. The court found that this deficiency prejudiced Brundage, as it was reasonably probable that an objection would have led to a different outcome regarding the felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony charges. Consequently, the court reversed Brundage's convictions on those counts, allowing for the possibility of retrial. The court affirmed Brundage's conviction for concealing the death of another, which was not challenged on appeal. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. View "BRUNDAGE v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
SINGLETON v. THE STATE
Raiem Singleton was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Luz Selene Velazquez and the aggravated assault of David Montes-Ponce. The crimes occurred on May 5, 2017, when Montes-Ponce and Velazquez arranged to buy a phone from a seller named "Tom Li" through a mobile app. When they met the seller at an apartment complex, the seller, accompanied by two other men, shot at Montes-Ponce's car, killing Velazquez. Montes-Ponce identified Singleton as the shooter.A DeKalb County grand jury indicted Singleton on multiple charges, including malice murder and aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, Singleton was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to life in prison for malice murder, with additional concurrent and suspended sentences for other charges. Singleton filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court after a hearing.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Singleton's appeal, where he argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification evidence from a photo lineup. The court employed a two-step process to evaluate the identification procedure, considering whether it was impermissibly suggestive and whether there was a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The court found that even if the lineup was suggestive, there was no substantial likelihood of misidentification due to Montes-Ponce's significant opportunity to view Singleton during the crime and his high degree of certainty in identifying Singleton.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the identification evidence and denying Singleton's motion to suppress. View "SINGLETON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
BURKE v. THE STATE
Dontarious Burke was convicted of malice murder and armed robbery for the shooting death of Kentrell Jones. The incident occurred on November 27, 2019, and Burke was indicted on March 1, 2021. His trial was severed from his brother DeMarcus Burke's trial. Burke was tried by a jury from October 19 to 20, 2021, and found guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison for malice murder and an additional 20 years for armed robbery. Burke filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court on May 6, 2024. He then filed a timely notice of appeal.The trial court denied Burke's motion for a new trial, and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Burke raised several claims, including a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the cumulative effect of errors requiring a new trial. The trial court had admitted testimony from police officers about information obtained from non-testifying witnesses, which Burke argued violated his Confrontation Clause rights. However, because Burke did not raise this objection at trial, the Supreme Court reviewed it for plain error and found none.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Burke's claims and found that none of them warranted a reversal of his convictions. The court held that Burke's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated, as the testimony in question did not clearly and obviously violate established law. Additionally, the court found that Burke's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance, as the decisions made by counsel were within the bounds of reasonable trial strategy. Finally, the court determined that there was no cumulative error that would require a new trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Burke's convictions. View "BURKE v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
REDDICK v. THE STATE
Pascal Lorenzo Reddick was found guilty by a Grady County jury of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, related to the shooting death of Antavius Robinson. The incident occurred when Robinson went to Reddick's home, where Reddick was with Robinson's wife, Lakeisha. Robinson banged on the door and shouted threats. Reddick fired two shots, one from inside the home and another from the porch, hitting Robinson as he retreated.The trial court sentenced Reddick to life in prison for felony murder and a consecutive five-year term for the firearm charge. Reddick's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. He argued that the evidence was insufficient to disprove his self-defense and defense of habitation claims, that the trial court erred in denying his immunity motion, and that his trial counsel was ineffective.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the convictions. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Reddick guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that Robinson was unarmed and retreating when he was shot, and the forensic evidence supported the State's theory that Reddick fired the fatal shot from the porch. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of Reddick's immunity motion, as the evidence did not support his defense of habitation claim.Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, the court concluded that Reddick failed to show that his counsel's performance was deficient or that any alleged deficiencies prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The court found that counsel's decisions were within the bounds of reasonable trial strategy. Thus, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "REDDICK v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
BLALOCK v. THE STATE
Damone Blalock and Rodalius Eugene Ryan, Jr. were convicted of the malice murder of Jamari Holmes, aggravated assaults of two other individuals, and related crimes. The crimes occurred on February 23, 2019, and the appellants were indicted in May 2019. They were tried together before a jury from September 21 to October 1, 2021, and found guilty on all presented counts. The trial court sentenced them to life in prison for malice murder, with additional consecutive and concurrent sentences for other charges. Their motions for a new trial were denied, leading to this appeal.The appellants argued that their trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in several ways, including failing to object to a witness invoking the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury, not introducing certain evidence, and not objecting to the prosecutor's comments on their silence during closing arguments. Ryan also claimed his counsel failed to investigate his alibi. The trial court found that while counsel was deficient in not reviewing certain evidence, the appellants failed to show that this deficiency prejudiced the outcome of the trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the trial counsel's strategic decisions, including not objecting to the witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment and not pursuing the alibi defense, were reasonable. The court also found that the appellants did not demonstrate that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the alleged deficiencies had not occurred. The cumulative effect of the assumed deficiencies did not warrant a new trial. Thus, the convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "BLALOCK v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
WHITE v. CITY OF MABLETON
In 2022, the Georgia General Assembly enacted House Bill 839 (HB 839), which incorporated the City of Mableton within unincorporated Cobb County and provided for the creation of one or more community improvement districts (CIDs) within Mableton. Deidre White and other residents of Cobb County challenged the constitutionality of HB 839, arguing that it violated the "Single Subject Rule" of the Georgia Constitution by creating more than one unit of government, specifically Mableton and the CIDs.The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court found that HB 839 did not violate the Single Subject Rule, as the creation of CIDs within Mableton was germane to the overall objective of incorporating the city. The Appellants then appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's dismissal. The court held that HB 839 did not violate the Single Subject Rule because the creation of CIDs within Mableton had a logical and natural connection to the incorporation of the city. The court also rejected the argument that the ballot question for HB 839 contravened the precedent set in Rea v. City of LaFayette, as the creation of CIDs was related to the single objective of establishing Mableton. Thus, the court concluded that HB 839 was constitutional and upheld the trial court's decision. View "WHITE v. CITY OF MABLETON" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law