Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Lee Hines was convicted by jury of malice murder and felony murder in connection with the 2003 stabbing death of Lacharity Gaines. Hines’s sole contention on appeal was that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to present a “surprise witness” who was not disclosed to the defense until the day of trial. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Hines' conviction. View "Hines v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Victor Grullon was convicted by jury of trafficking heroin, and a trial court sentenced him to serve 30 years in prison. Grullon appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the trial court gave an erroneous jury charge on deliberate ignorance. The Court of Appeals affirmed Grullon’s conviction, concluding that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (1979), and that Grullon did not show “reversible error because he affirmatively stated to the trial court that he had no objection after the jury was charged.” The Georgia Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that Grullon affirmatively waived his claim that the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction on deliberate ignorance. Because the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, it reversed that portion of the Court of Appeals' judgment. View "Grullon v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Georgia law generally required a person to apply for and receive a valid weapons carry license from a probate judge before carrying a handgun or other weapon in public. The General Assembly identified specific categories of people to whom “[n]o weapons carry license shall be issued,” including people with certain criminal convictions. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to determine whether a probate judge could deny an application for a weapons carry license under OCGA 16-11-129 based on a determination that the applicant’s criminal history records report failed to show the outcome of an arrest that could have resulted in a disqualifying conviction. Applying the plain language of the statute, the Court concluded that a probate judge had no such authority. It therefore reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary. View "Bell v. Hargrove" on Justia Law

Jammie Rashad Davis appealed his convictions for murder and other crimes stemming from the 2018 shooting death of Latravius Burks. Davis argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because evidence showed that he acted in self-defense; and (2) the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded: (1) Davis’s sufficiency claim failed because the jury did not have to believe Davis’s self-serving testimony that he was defending himself. And (2) his claim of plain instructional error fails because the victim’s touching of Davis’s daughter’s lips was "not the kind of provocation that would have obviously required a voluntary manslaughter instruction." View "Davis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Andrew Murray was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Paul Sampleton, Jr. Over the course of his motion-for-new-trial proceedings, Murray was appointed three different attorneys, each of whom he rejected. Representing himself at the last hearing on his motion for new trial, Murray purported to be a different person – “Billy Drew Bey” – who was acting as Murray’s attorney, prompting the trial court to enter an order either dismissing or denying Murray’s amended motion for new trial because “Bey” had not provided any support for the motion and “Murray” had failed to appear for the hearing. Murray appealed that order. The Georgia Supreme Court found that because the reasons given by the trial court were not proper grounds for dismissing or denying Murray’s amended motion for new trial, judgment was vacated and the case remanded for the court to consider the merits of Murray’s motion. View "Murray v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Tevision Troy appealed his convictions for the 2016 murder of Tony Saffo and a firearm offense. Troy argued only that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that he committed an aggravated assault in 1998 with the same gun that was used to kill Saffo. He contended admitting this evidence violated OCGA sections 24-4-404 (b) (“Rule 404 (b)”) and 24-4-403 (“Rule 403”). But the Georgia Supreme Court determined it did not need to reach the merits of Troy’s contentions, as the evidence’s admission was harmless even if erroneous. View "Troy v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The State appealed the grant of habeas relief to Aaron Houston, who pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor DUI counts. The habeas court vacated the convictions entered on those pleas on grounds that the pleas were tendered without the assistance of counsel and without Houston being advised of his right to counsel, and that Houston did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel. The State argued to the Georgia Supreme Court that the habeas court erred because Houston did not produce sufficient evidence that his waiver of counsel was not knowing and voluntary. Because the habeas court did not clearly err in concluding that Houston was not advised of his right to counsel at the plea hearing, thereby precluding an express waiver of that right, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Georgia v. Houston" on Justia Law

Miguel Angel Garcia-Martinez was convicted of malice murder, four counts of aggravated assault, and four counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the 2018 shooting death of his friend and former roommate, Daniel Antonio-Lopez, and the aggravated assaults of Antonio-Lopez, Juan Carlos Mondragon, Saul Roman-Pintado, and Francisco Lopez. The trial court denied Garcia-Martinez’s motion for new trial, and he appealed, using as his sole enumeration of error the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. Finding the evidence sufficient, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Garcia-Martinez v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Rebecca Schoicket was granted an out-of-time appeal to appeal the judgment of conviction entered on her guilty plea. In addition to challenging her sentence on one count, she argued the out-of-time appeal she was granted meant that the trial court should have granted her motion for leave to file an otherwise untimely motion to withdraw her guilty plea. Schoicket argued that Collier v. Georgia, 834 SE2d 769 (2019), recognized that it would be a “logical extension” of Georgia case law to permit the filing of such a motion, because the Georgia Supreme Court has stated that the grant of an out-of-time appeal started the post-conviction process “anew.” The Supreme Court determined Schoicket was correct in that appraisal of Georgia case law, but the Court declined to extend it to afford her the relief she sought. "Allowing such a grant to then permit the movant to file a motion to withdraw a guilty plea would be an unwarranted windfall with potentially profound consequences for our criminal justice system." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's denials of Schoicket's motion for leave to pursue such relief. However, because the Court agreed with Schoicket that the sentencing court erred in sentencing as to one count, that count was vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "Schoicket v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jabarri Ash was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes arising from the shooting death of Mario Shaw. On appeal, Ash argued the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prior convictions pursuant to OCGA 24-4-404 (b); that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of certain statements made by Shaw pursuant to OCGA 24-8- 807; that the State improperly destroyed exculpatory evidence; that the trial court plainly erred in its instructions to the jury; and that the cumulative harm of these errors affected the trial’s outcome such that he should receive a new trial. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded there was no reversible error, and affirmed. View "Ash v. Georgia" on Justia Law