Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Philip Pugh entered a plea of guilty but mentally ill to malice murder in connection with the shooting death of Vincent Newsome. On appeal, Pugh claimed the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty but mentally ill plea for three reasons: (1) the trial court should have sua sponte conducted a competency hearing at the time of his guilty plea and that the failure to do so violated his procedural due process rights; (2) his substantive due process rights were violated by the trial court’s acceptance of the plea because Pugh was not competent to enter the plea and did not enter the plea voluntarily; and (3) he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in that plea counsel failed to request a competency hearing. The Georgia Supreme Court found that given Pugh’s repeated assertions at the time of the plea that he was being threatened and forced into entering the plea, the State failed to meet its burden to show that his plea was knowing and voluntary. The Court therefore reversed Pugh’s conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Pugh v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Anthony Perryman-Henderson was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2017 shooting death of Tanaya Dunlap. On appeal, Perryman-Henderson contended: (1) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to “correct” the medical examiner’s testimony about the range the fatal shot was fired from; and (2) the trial court committed plain error by commenting on the State’s characterization of the medical examiner’s range-of-fire testimony in a way that could be taken as endorsement of it. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Perryman-Henderson's convictions. View "Perryman-Henderson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Rico King was convicted by jury of the 2018 malice murder of Michael Brooks and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony based on shooting Brooks. King argued on appeal: (1) that the trial court erroneously denied King’s motion for a new trial on the “general grounds”; (2) the trial court should not have allowed witness testimony and closing arguments about voluntary intoxication; (3) the trial court plainly erred by admitting character evidence about King’s alleged past alcohol and illegal drug use; and (4) that King received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed King's convictions. View "King v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Joshua Leonard was convicted by jury of malice murder and related crimes arising from the August 2010 shooting of Calvin Grimes, which resulted in Grimes’ death approximately ten months later from complications related to gunshot wounds. On appeal, Leonard argued the trial court erred in five respects and that he was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of those errors. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Leonard v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Eric Greene was convicted of malice murder and theft by taking in connection with the strangling death of Sheila Bryant in January 2019. On appeal, Greene contended that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred: (1) by denying Greene’s motion to suppress his statement taken on February 18, 2019; (2) by admitting improper extrinsic evidence; (3) by admitting overly graphic autopsy photographs; (4) by allowing the State to present harmful and non-probative evidence from Greene’s cell phone showing that he conducted internet searches pertaining to rape; and (5) by failing to instruct the jury on mere presence and corroboration of a defendant’s statement. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Greene's convictions. View "Greene v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Phillip Blocker appealed his convictions for malice murder, participation in criminal street gang activity, and related offenses in connection with the 2010 shooting death of Eric Smith. Appellant argued on appeal: (1) insufficient evidence supported his conviction for participating in criminal street gang activity; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting as an excited utterance a hearsay statement that Appellant had just shot someone; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for (a) failing to object to the State’s closing argument that Appellant was guilty of participating in criminal street gang activity, (b) introducing photographic evidence depicting one of Appellant’s friends holding a gun and “throwing” possible gang signs, (c) failing to object to the admission of surveillance video capturing events surrounding the shooting, and (d) failing to request a jury charge informing the jury that Appellant’s out-of-court statements could not be believed without corroboration. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Blocker's convictions. View "Blocker v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Matthew Copeland was convicted of felony murder and related crimes in connection with the 2012 shooting death of Carlos Glenn. Copeland contended that the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support his convictions and that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. The Georgia Supreme Court found the evidence was sufficient: the only disputed question was whether the shooting was justified, and the jury was entitled to discredit Copeland’s testimony that he shot Glenn in self-defense. And, although trial counsel admitted he relied on outdated precedent in seeking the admission of evidence about Glenn’s criminal convictions, the Court determined Copeland failed to establish that such evidence would have been admissible even under the applicable standard, so he has not shown the prejudice necessary to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance. The Court therefore affirmed his convictions and sentence. View "Copeland v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Undrea Burley was convicted by jury of felony murder in connection with the beating death of Joshua Brooks. Burley contended the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the elements of malice murder because the indictment charged Burley and his co-defendants, Wesley Adams and Demetrious Smith, with felony murder predicated on “aggravated assault with intent to murder.” The Georgia Supreme Court found the trial court’s instructions concerning the offenses of felony murder and aggravated assault with intent to murder, though erroneous, did not constitute plain error requiring reversal. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "Burley v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Geovanni Perez was convicted of felony murder and a firearm offense in connection with the 2018 shooting death of Rahmier Gardner. Perez contended on appeal: (1) that the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support his conviction for felony murder based on armed robbery; (2) the trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress certain evidence; and that he was improperly sentenced. Seeing no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Perez v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Five University System of Georgia (“USG”) professors filed suit to block a 2017 statutory amendment that removed public colleges and other public postsecondary educational institutions from the statutory definition of “school safety zone.” Before the 2017 amendment, carrying or possessing a weapon on any real property or in any building owned by or leased to any postsecondary educational institution was a misdemeanor, and the 2017 amendment decriminalized that conduct. The professors alleged that, as a result of the 2017 amendment, the Code required the Board of Regents, the USG, and USG institutions to permit persons to carry or possess weapons on the campuses of public postsecondary educational institutions, contrary to longstanding USG policies. The professors sought a declaration that the statutory amendment was unconstitutional as applied because it usurped the Board’s constitutional authority to govern, control, and manage the USG and its member institutions. The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss the complaint and denied the professors’ request for declaratory relief, ruling that the trial court lacked jurisdiction on three alternative grounds, including mootness. The Georgia Supreme Court found that because the complaint showed that the Board adopted gun-carrying policies consistent with the 2017 statutory amendment, the question of whether the amendment usurped the constitutional authority of the Board to govern, control, and manage the USG and its member institutions became moot. Consequently, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the professors’ as-applied challenge, and the judgment dismissing the professors’ complaint on that basis was affirmed. View "Knox v. Georgia" on Justia Law