Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Tacomsi Winters was tried and found guilty of felony murder and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Dionte Bradley. On appeal, Winters argued she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and that the trial court committed plain error in instructing the jury. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Winters v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Herbert Drews was convicted of crimes related to the death of James David Ayers, who was a 70-year-old man, and the aggravated battery of Troyce Warren. Appellant alleged the evidence was insufficient to show that he was an active participant in those crimes. He also argued his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to investigate allegations raised by a supplemental police report and attendant dashboard camera video. Finding no reversible errors, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Drews' convictions. View "Drews v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Herbert Drews was convicted of crimes related to the death of James David Ayers, who was a 70-year-old man, and the aggravated battery of Troyce Warren. Appellant alleged the evidence was insufficient to show that he was an active participant in those crimes. He also argued his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to investigate allegations raised by a supplemental police report and attendant dashboard camera video. Finding no reversible errors, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Drews' convictions. View "Drews v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Richard Morrison was tried before a jury and found guilty of the malice murder of his girlfriend Tammie Smith. He appealed pro se, asserting multiple claims of error. Having reviewed these claims, the Georgia Supreme Court found no merit to any of his claims, and affirmed his conviction. View "Morrison v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Richard Morrison was tried before a jury and found guilty of the malice murder of his girlfriend Tammie Smith. He appealed pro se, asserting multiple claims of error. Having reviewed these claims, the Georgia Supreme Court found no merit to any of his claims, and affirmed his conviction. View "Morrison v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Derek Kemp, Harvey Hogans, and Alphonso Watkins appealed their convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Derek Gray. Kemp and Watkins challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions, and all defendants raised various challenges to the testimony of Steve Lewis, a fellow gang member. Watkins also argued the trial court erred in permitting a “non-examining doctor” to testify about the post-mortem examination of the victim. The defendants also purport to “preserve” certain claims to the extent they may be applicable in future habeas proceedings. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendants’ convictions, there was no error in admitting or refusing to strike Lewis’s testimony, and the so-called “non-examining doctor” was the medical examiner who was allowed to testify about the autopsy he performed on the victim. The defendants’ claims that they wished to “preserve” certain arguments failed because the Court determined defendants did not raise any meaningful arguments on appeal in this respect. The Court therefore affirmed their convictions. View "Kemp v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Derek Kemp, Harvey Hogans, and Alphonso Watkins appealed their convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Derek Gray. Kemp and Watkins challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions, and all defendants raised various challenges to the testimony of Steve Lewis, a fellow gang member. Watkins also argued the trial court erred in permitting a “non-examining doctor” to testify about the post-mortem examination of the victim. The defendants also purport to “preserve” certain claims to the extent they may be applicable in future habeas proceedings. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendants’ convictions, there was no error in admitting or refusing to strike Lewis’s testimony, and the so-called “non-examining doctor” was the medical examiner who was allowed to testify about the autopsy he performed on the victim. The defendants’ claims that they wished to “preserve” certain arguments failed because the Court determined defendants did not raise any meaningful arguments on appeal in this respect. The Court therefore affirmed their convictions. View "Kemp v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Terrance Dent appealed his convictions and sentences for felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, as well as the denial of his motion for new trial, as amended, all in connection with the shooting death of Jevon Freeman. Dent challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the failure to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter in accordance with Edge v. Georgia, 414 SE2d 463 (1992), and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Finding the challenges to be without merit, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dent v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Terrance Dent appealed his convictions and sentences for felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, as well as the denial of his motion for new trial, as amended, all in connection with the shooting death of Jevon Freeman. Dent challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the failure to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter in accordance with Edge v. Georgia, 414 SE2d 463 (1992), and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Finding the challenges to be without merit, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dent v. Georgia" on Justia Law

David Leeks appealed his convictions for malice murder and other charges stemming from the robbery and fatal shooting of a Fulton County convenience store clerk, Zerit Haileslasie. Leeks argued his convictions should have been reversed because the trial court committed plain error in charging the jury: (1) on the concept of party to a crime; and (2) that the jury may consider an identification witness’s level of certainty in assessing the reliability of the identification. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error with respect to the jury instructions and affirmed Leeks' convictions. View "Leeks v. Georgia" on Justia Law