Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Eric Simmons was convicted by jury for murder and the possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Simmons argued the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by not granting his motion for a mistrial following “emotional outbursts” from the victim’s family and friends. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Simmons' convictions and sentence. View "Simmons v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Vivian Corley was conned by jury of murder, aggravated assault, and the unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the fatal shooting of Lorraine Manuel. Corley appealed, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions, that she previously had been acquitted of murder with malice aforethought and could not be retried for that crime, that the trial court erred when it excluded certain evidence, and that the prosecuting attorney made improper comments to the jury. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error related to these claims. The Court did note, however, that the trial court erred when it failed to merge the aggravated assault into the murder. The Court therefore vacated the conviction and sentence for aggravated assault, but otherwise affirmed. View "Corley v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Rosano Bundel appealed his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the 2011 shooting death of George Tabetando. Bundel argued that the weight of the evidence did not support his convictions and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial without conducting a hearing. Finding the evidence entered into the trial court record sufficient to support Bundel's conviction, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. Furthermore, the Court determined Bundel's second claim was also without merit because a trial court is required to hold a hearing on a motion for new trial only when one is requested, and Bundel did not do so. View "Bundel v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Marcus Moore pled guilty to, and was convicted of murder. He moved for an out-of-time appeal. The trial court later sua sponte dismissed Moore’s notice of appeal from the order denying his motion for an out-of-time appeal, based on its determinations that the judgment was not then appealable and that the questions presented had become moot. Moore filed a timely notice of appeal of the dismissal order. Because trial courts are not authorized to dismiss appeals for the reasons given in the dismissal order, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed that order. And because the record reflected that the trial court failed to conduct a factual inquiry into the allegations in Moore’s motion for an out-of- time appeal, as required under the circumstances, the Supreme Court vacated the order denying his motion for an out-of-time appeal and remanded to the trial court for consideration of the merits of the motion. View "Moore v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Demarquis Glenn was convicted by jury for the murder of Quantieria Knight, and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. On appeal, Glenn argued the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to suppress certain evidence. Finding n reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed conviction. View "Glenn v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Robert Wilson was convicted by jury for the murder of his infant son. As appeal. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, specifically that the evidence presented against him was entirely circumstantial, and that the evidence did not exclude his reasonable hypothesis that the victim's mother fatally injured their son. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed conviction. View "Wilson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Charles “Dre” Mattox was tried by jury and convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the fatal shootings of Dewayne Bacon and John Bacon. Mattox appealed, claiming: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel; and (3) his due process rights were violated by a lengthy delay in the disposition of his motion for new trial. Upon its review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Mattox v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted Joseph Watkins’ application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal a superior court order dismissing Watkins’ second petition for writ of habeas corpus. The issue presented for the Georgia Supreme Court's review centered on whether the habeas court properly dismissed Watkins’ petition as both untimely and successive. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the habeas court erred in dismissing Watkins’ petition, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Watkins v. Ballinger" on Justia Law

In March 2018, Paul Remy was tried for murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Jenario Stark. After the jury had deliberated for a full day without reaching a verdict, the trial court declared a mistrial. Four days later, Remy filed a motion for immunity from prosecution under OCGA 16-3-24.2, arguing that he shot Stark in defense of himself and others. Before the hearing on the immunity motion occurred, the State re-indicted Remy for the same incident, omitting a count of aggravated assault and adding a second charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. After the hearing, the trial court granted Remy immunity. The court then dismissed the new indictment on the ground that it was issued after a court-ordered deadline for the filing of new indictments. On appeal, the State raised three alleged errors: (1) Remy was not entitled to file a motion for immunity after a mistrial; (2) even if an immunity motion may be considered after the declaration of a mistrial, Remy was not entitled to immunity on the merits; and (3) the trial court erred when it dismissed the second indictment. Because the trial court failed to provide a legal basis for dismissing the charges in the second indictment, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed that ruling. Furthermore, the Court vacated the felon-in-possession charge for the trial court to conduct further analysis in light of Johnson v. Georgia, Case No. S19A1404, 2020 WL 966592 (Feb. 28, 2020). The Court affirmed as to all other issues. View "Georgia v. Remy" on Justia Law

Edward Williams appealed a superior court order dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice. Acting pro se, Williams sued DeKalb County and members of its governing authority, the Chief Executive Officer and the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners, in their official and individual capacities (collectively, “Appellees”). Williams challenged the legality of a DeKalb County ordinance, which increased the salaries of the members of the county governing authority, setting forth claims for mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief, criminal and civil penalties for violating the Open Meetings Act, and attorney fees and costs of litigation. On appeal, Williams argued the trial court erred in dismissing his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the members of the governing authority in their individual capacities for acting unlawfully in increasing their own pay. He argued the trial court erred in dismissing his claim that the County Home Rule Paragraph of the Georgia Constitution, precluded county governing authorities from having the power to increase their own pay. The Georgia Supreme Court did not reach the merits of these claims of error because Williams lacked standing to sue the members of the governing authority for declaratory relief, he lacked standing to sue the commissioners for injunctive relief, and whether he has standing to seek injunctive relief against Thurmond required proper analysis by the trial court on remand. Williams also contended the trial court erred in dismissing his claims against the commissioners for violating the Open Meetings Act before passing the salary ordinance, making them individually liable for civil penalties under the Act. To this contention, the Supreme Court agreed, reversing that portion of the court’s order dismissing Williams’ claim against the commissioners for civil penalties under the Open Meetings Act. The matter was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Williams v. DeKalb County" on Justia Law