Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michael Styles was tried by jury and found guilty of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Alberto Lumens and the armed robbery of Juan Garcia. Styles contended on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, the trial court erred in charging the jury and in handling a communication from the jury, the prosecutor improperly expressed personal opinions during the trial, and that defense counsel rendered him ineffective assistance. Because the Georgia Supreme Court found no merit to any of these claims of error, it affirmed judgment. View "Styles v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A trial court found that the State failed to prove that Evontae Hinton, after invoking his right to remain silent, initiated further discussions with a detective and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent; the court therefore suppressed statements Hinton then made to the detective. The State appealed the suppression, arguing the trial court misapplied the law and made erroneous factual and credibility determinations, because the detective’s testimony at the motion to suppress hearing clearly showed that Hinton waived his rights and reinitiated discussions with the detective. The Georgia Supreme Court found the trial court was not required to credit the detective’s testimony, and the State did not introduce any other evidence to meet its burden of establishing the voluntariness of Hinton’s custodial statements. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Georgia v. Hinton" on Justia Law

Quantavious Grier was tried by jury in 2010, and convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the robbery and fatal shooting of James Yarborough. Grier successfully moved for a new trial. The trial court found that the case against Grier was based substantially upon the testimony of Rimion Rawlings, that the greater weight of the evidence indicated that Rawlings was Grier’s accomplice, and that Rawlings’s testimony was insufficiently corroborated by independent evidence. The State appealed, contending the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the motion for new trial. Grier cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court also should have concluded that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon its review of the record and the briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no merit in either of these claims, and affirmed. View "Georgia v. Grier" on Justia Law

Lajuante Stephens was convicted by jury for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault and related offenses in connection with the 2013 shooting death of James Evers. He received life imprisonment without parole for the malice murder, and a range of prison terms for the other crimes, all to be run consecutively. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred in striking a particular juror for cause. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed Stephens' convictions. View "Stephens v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following the grant of an out-of-time appeal, Richard Ringold appealed a trial court’s November 2013 order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds in what was the second time this case went before the Georgia Supreme Court. The State contended the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits of Ringold’s ineffective assistance claim because he was still represented by counsel when he filed his pro se motion to withdraw. To this, the Supreme Court agreed, concluding Ringold’s pro se filing was a legal nullity and that the trial court therefore should have dismissed the void motion rather than reach its merits. View "Ringold v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Brian Davenport appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Debora Abney. Davenport contended: (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him; and (2) that the trial court erred by admitting improper character evidence under OCGA 24-4-404 (b) and certain hearsay evidence. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed because the evidence was legally sufficient to support Davenport’s convictions, any error in the admission of the Rule 404 (b) evidence was harmless, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the hearsay evidence. However, by this opinion, the Court also announced it would end its practice of sua sponte review of the constitutional sufficiency of the evidence supporting convictions in appeals of non-death penalty murder cases, beginning with cases that docket to the term of court that begins December 2020. The Court stated it would begin assigning cases to the December Term on August 3, 2020. View "Davenport v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2017, William Pounds III was convicted of malice murder. Pounds filed a motion for new trial, but did so after the statutory filing deadline for motions for new trial had expired; the motion was therefore untimely. However, the trial court did not dismiss Pounds’s motion for new trial as untimely; instead, it denied the motion on the merits. Then, three weeks later, and almost two years after Pounds was convicted, the trial court granted Pounds an out-of-time appeal. But because the trial court’s merits ruling on Pounds’s late-filed and untimely motion for new trial was invalid, Pounds never obtained a valid ruling on the motion for new trial that preceded his request for an out-of-time-appeal and that ripened upon the granting of the out-of-time appeal. As a result, when Pounds filed a notice of appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, his prior motion for new trial was still pending, and the trial court retained jurisdiction to rule on it. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that because trial court retained jurisdiction on the merits of Pounds' new trial motion, the notice of appeal that Pounds filed pursuant to the grant of out-of-time appeal had not ripened, thus the attempted appeal to the Supreme Court had to be dismissed. View "Pounds v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Reginald Lofton challenged his 2016 conviction for being a party to felony murder predicated on the armed robbery and shooting death of pizza delivery driver Shane Varnadore. Appellant claimed on appeal that the trial court made a number of evidentiary errors and that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance in two respects. Finding no errors, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed conviction. View "Lofton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Christopher Calmer shot two Monroe County Georgia sheriff’s deputies, Michael Norris and Jeffrey Wilson, after they opened the door to his residence in response to a 911 call. Wilson recovered, but Norris died of his injuries. Following a jury trial, Calmer was convicted of malice murder and other offenses arising out of the shooting. Calmer contended on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury on justification and on the lesser offenses of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. He also contended the court erred in denying his motion for immunity from prosecution. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Calmer v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Derrick Middleton was convicted by jury of one count of hijacking a motor vehicle, one count of theft by receiving by retaining the stolen vehicle, and several other crimes relating to a 2014 armed robbery and carjacking. Middleton filed a motion for new trial, which was subsequently amended, contending, among other things, that the verdicts for hijacking a motor vehicle and theft by receiving that vehicle were mutually exclusive and, consequently, that any judgment entered on these verdicts was void. The trial court denied Middleton’s motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial in part, holding that Middleton had waived the issue of mutually exclusive verdicts as to hijacking a motor vehicle and theft by receiving the same motor vehicle by failing to object to the verdicts at the time they were rendered. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari, responding to two questions: (1) whether a defendant must object to the form of the verdicts at the time they are rendered in order to assert on appeal that convictions are mutually exclusive; and (2) whether convictions for hijacking and theft by receiving the same vehicle were mutually exclusive. The parties suggested, to which the Court agreed, that the answer to the first question was "no." With respect to the second question, the Supreme Court concluded that convictions for hijacking and theft by receiving the same vehicle were mutually exclusive. The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Middleton v. Georgia" on Justia Law