Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Joshua Starks appealed after he was convicted of felony murder and other charges stemming from 2013 the shooting death of Stenneth Charles during a drug deal. Starks argued he was entitled to a new trial because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to: (1) certain testimony as being an improper prior consistent statement; and (2) portions of the State’s closing argument. Assuming without deciding that trial counsel’s performance was deficient in both respects, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded Starks did not shown any prejudice, and affirmed his convictions. View "Starks v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Orlando Hawkins was convicted by jury of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the 2013 shooting death of Morie Brooks. On appeal, Hawkins argued the trial court erred in instructing the jury, and in denying his motion in liminie to exclude from trial certain Facebook posts. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hawkins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Brawny McCullough was found guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting deaths of his father, Donald Eugene McCullough (“Gene”), and his great-aunt, Peggy Molden. The State sought the death penalty, but the jury decided that Appellant should instead be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Appellant argued on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by denying his request to continue the trial to accommodate a scheduling conflict that one of his lawyers had, even though Appellant had already been granted one lengthy continuance and was represented at trial by three other competent capital defenders. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions and affirmed the convictions, but vacated the trial court’s judgment in part to correct a sentencing error. View "McCullough v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Quinntavish Kennedy appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes related to the 2012 shooting death of Isiah Archible. At trial, the State introduced other acts evidence under OCGA 24-4-404 (b), and Kennedy’s sole argument on appeal was that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument referencing that evidence, which Kennedy interpreted as an impermissible argument that he had a propensity for committing crimes. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, finding trial counsel was not deficient because a reasonable attorney could have interpreted the prosecutor’s statements merely as arguing that the evidence established Kennedy’s intent to commit the charged crimes. View "Kennedy v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Michelle Hall, who was represented by counsel in her first appeal, sought to pursue a second direct appeal, which was not authorized by Georgia law, leaving the Georgia Supreme Court without jurisdiction to consider on the merits. Hall was convicted of malice murder and family violence aggravated assault in 2009. Her convictions were affirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court in her first direct appeal. She applied for habeas relief, which was ultimately denied. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the denial of habeas relief, and remanded to Georgia federal district court with instruction to remand to state court for a new direct appeal. The federal district court ruling served as the basis for Hall’s appeal before the Georgia Supreme Court. While the Georgia Supreme Court found itself in “no position to dictate the parameters of relief granted by the Eleventh Circuit, the relief granted by the Eleventh Circuit in this case is not available. In Georgia, the normal remedy for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in a situation where the defendant has not suffered a complete denial of counsel in his or her first direct appeal is a new trial, not just a new appeal.” Although the Eleventh Circuit's holding that Hall is entitled to habeas relief due to ineffective assistance of her appellate counsel is res judicata on the State, the State lacks the legal authority to provide the specific relief the Eleventh Circuit ordered. View "Hall v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Joseph Harris was tried and convicted of murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, criminal trespass and other crimes committed against David Rucker, Ashley Gay and Rucker and Gay’s two minor children. Harris appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the charges, the trial court erred in denying a mistrial or continuance after an alleged discovery violation, his trial court have been severed from that of co-defendant Denirio Cunningham, and that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence whose prejudice outweighed its probative value. The Georgia Supreme Court found the evidence was insufficient to establish Harris’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt regarding the three counts of false imprisonment, and his convictions and sentences for the same were reversed. The trial court was affirmed in all other respects, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Harris v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Raymon Green appeals his conviction for malice murder and other crimes, stemming from two different incidents occurring on May 9 and 21, 2010, the latter of which resulted in the death of Christopher Finney. Green argued on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict as to certain counts. He also argued trial counsel provided ineffective assistance: (1) in failing to move to sever the counts related to the May 9 incident; (2) introduce a certified copy of a burglary conviction of a key State witness (Tony Chatfield); (3) seek a jury instruction on impeachment by felony conviction; and (4) argue in closing that Chatfield’s conviction rendered his testimony unbelievable. Because the evidence was sufficient to support Green’s convictions and he has not shown that he was prejudiced by any of the alleged deficiencies of counsel, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Green v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Christopher Frisby appealed a trial court’s order denying his motion for an out-of-time appeal of his 1995 convictions based on guilty pleas to malice murder and other crimes related to the stabbing death of Karen Benning and the attempted murder of Carrie Missinne. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court determined Appellant has not shown a proper excuse for not filing a timely appeal, and as such, he was not entitled to an out-of-time appeal. View "Frisby v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Taurean Thorpe was tried and convicted of felony murder and related offenses in connection with the June 2010 shooting death of Justin Evans. Thorpe appealed, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court committed reversible error. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Thorpe v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Moises Herrera-Bustamante was convicted after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and having an open container of alcohol. About a year later, while his motion for new trial was pending, the Georgia Supreme Court decided Olevik v. Georgia, 806 SE2d 505 (2017), which held that under the compelled self-incrimination clause of the Georgia Constitution, individuals have the right to refuse to take a breathalyzer test. Herrera-Bustamante then amended his motion for new trial to argue for the first time that evidence that he refused to consent to a breathalyzer test should not have been admitted against him at his DUI trial. The trial court agreed and granted him a new trial on this ground. Because Herrera-Bustamante never raised this claim at trial and has not shown that the admission of the breathalyzer refusal evidence was plain error, the Supreme Court reversed the order granting him a new trial and remand the case for the trial court to consider the other grounds raised in the amended motion for new trial. View "Georgia v. Herrera-Bustamante" on Justia Law