Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In 2005, Henry Stubbs was convicted of armed robbery and hijacking a motor vehicle, among many other crimes, and was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 31 years. On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions in 2008. In 2012, Stubbs filed a writ of habeas corpus through an attorney, which the habeas court dismissed as untimely. He then filed an application for a certificate of probable cause with the Georgia Supreme Court to appeal that dismissal. The issue the Supreme Court considered on certiorari review was whether the habeas court erred in dismissing Stubbs' petition as untimely when Stubbs presented evidence, via a verified habeas petition, that he had not been advised of the time limitations governing habeas corpus actions. Although the Supreme Court concluded that the habeas court’s ruling about the exact date that Stubbs’s convictions became final was erroneous, the Court nonetheless affirmed the habeas court’s dismissal of Stubbs’s petition because it was untimely under OCGA 9-14-42(c)(1) — a fact that neither party disputed. The Court also concluded that Stubbs’s untimely petition was not subject to statutory or equitable tolling. The Court therefore answered the question presented “no” and affirmed the habeas court’s dismissal of Stubbs’s petition. View "Stubbs v. Hall" on Justia Law

Both the State of Georgia and Johnny Lee Gates appealed the grant of Gates’ extraordinary motion for new trial by the trial court. In Case No. S19A1130, the State argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that Gates should receive a new trial because of the discovery of new DNA evidence that was material and exculpatory. The State also argued that the trial court erred when it also appeared to grant Gates’ extraordinary motion on the basis of Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), due to destruction of evidence by the State. In Case No. S19X1131, Gates cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court should have also granted him a new trial on his claim that the process by which the jury at his 1977 trial was selected was marred by racial discrimination. Because the Georgia Supreme Court found no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in its grant of a new trial to Gates on the basis of the newly discovered DNA evidence, it affirmed that judgment in Case No. S19A1130. In light of that determination, the Court did not consider the State’s argument in Case No. S19A1130 relating to Gates’ Youngblood claim or the arguments raised by Gates in Case No. S19X1131. View "Georgia v. Gates" on Justia Law

Appellant Charles Kilpatrick, Jr. appeals his convictions related to the shooting death of Joseph Wilder. In 1998, appellant and Wilder were driving westbound on I-20 in their respective vehicles. Appellant’s friend, Marcuss Herndon, was a passenger in appellant’s vehicle. Witnesses testified that appellant’s and Wilder’s vehicles were bumping into each other on the highway. The two vehicles ultimately ended up stopped in the emergency lane with Wilder’s vehicle, which was a maroon SUV, parked behind appellant’s vehicle, which was a dark-colored truck. Witnesses stated they saw appellant, who was positioned behind the back of his truck and in front of Wilder’s forward-facing SUV, point a gun at and fire it several times into Wilder’s vehicle, all while calmly walking backwards towards his truck. Herndon, who remained in the passenger seat of appellant’s vehicle, testified that he heard gunshots, but that he did not actually see the shooting. Immediately after his arrest, appellant told police he shot Wilder in self-defense. On appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, contending the State failed to meet its burden of disproving his defense of justification. He also argued the trial court made multiple errors, including excluding his expert witness, and excluding evidence that Wilder was a member of a motorcycle gang. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s conviction. View "Kilpatrick v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2005, Appellant Contresstis Tolbert and his co-defendant Jeremy Butts were found guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2001 shooting death of Robert Funderburk. Appellant contended the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his post-arrest statements to the police and by admitting “similar transaction” evidence. Finding those claims meritless, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Tolbert v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Cornelius Edwards challenged his 2018 convictions for felony murder and other crimes in connection with an attempted armed robbery of Delvin Phillips and Marvin Goodman that resulted in the shooting death of Appellant’s accomplice, Billy Favors. Appellant contended: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court failed to fulfill its role as the so-called “thirteenth juror;” (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a recording of a recording of a telephone call; and (3) the trial court committed reversible error in admitting other acts evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Edwards v. Georgia" on Justia Law