Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Gregory Williams and Shauna Smith were tried together and convicted for murder, burglary and related crimes in connection with the 2007 shooting death of Brian Mosely. Both appealed, one challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial; the other arguing her constitutional right to be present during all critical stages of trial was violated. Smith’s claim arose from her exclusion from an unrecorded bench conference between the trial court and counsel, after jury deliberations had begun, regarding the excusal of one of the jurors. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that Smith acquiesced in the error she raised on appeal. The Court therefore affirmed both convictions. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Rodney Shepard was tried by jury and convicted of murder and the unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, both in connection with the fatal shooting of David Lumpkin. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Shepard appealed, contending: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress a statement that he gave to law enforcement officers; (3) that the trial court erred when it charged the jury; and (4) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court saw no error, and affirmed. View "Shepard v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Hannibal McMullen was convicted of malice murder, aggravated stalking, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in connection with the shooting death of Ketrita Jones. He appealed, arguing, inter alia, the evidence was insufficient to prove venue. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McMullen v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Cortez McClain, Walter Simon, and Anthony Gene Trim were tried by jury and convicted of several crimes in connection with an attempted robbery. At trial, there was a dispute about the qualification of a prospective juror, whose daughter previously had been prosecuted in the same county for an armed robbery. During voir dire, the prospective juror expressed her discomfort with serving on the jury, explaining that the same prosecuting attorney had been involved in her daughter’s case, and noting that her daughter had been represented in that case by the lawyer now representing Trim. The prosecuting attorney sought to have the prospective juror struck for cause, but McClain, Simon, and Trim wanted to keep her. Over their objections, the trial court excused the prospective juror. McClain, Simon, and Trim appealed, and each claimed that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his convictions. McClain alone asserted that the trial court erred when it excused the prospective juror for cause. Finding the evidence legally sufficient, the Court of Appeals affirmed Simon and Trim’s convictions. But as to McClain, the Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that a trial court has discretion to excuse a prospective juror for cause only after “an adequate inquiry has been conducted,” and concluding that the inquiry into the impartiality of the prospective juror in question was inadequate. Simon and Trim then filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus, each asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel on appeal because his lawyer failed to raise a claim of error about the juror. A habeas court granted Simon’s petition; a different habeas court denied Trim’s petition, and Trim appealed. Although Warden Stan Shepard urged the habeas court to deny Trim’s petition, the Warden informed the Supreme Court that he no longer disputed that Trim was entitled to habeas relief. Though the Supreme Court was not bound by the litigating position of the Warden, the Court found it had an obligation to decide for itself whether the judgment of the habeas court was legally sound. Finding that it was, the Court affirmed the denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. View "Trim v. Shepard" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Michael King for storing property on his Clayton County property without a proper permit. He appealed, arguing he was prosecuted for political reasons. Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court found no merit in this assertion, and affirmed the conviction. View "King v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Cornelius Wright for the malice murder of Mitchieano Carmichael, as well as several related assault and firearms possession crimes. He would later be tried and found guilty on all counts against him. He appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Furthermore, Wright argued the trial court erred by prohibiting him from introducing evidence he contended would have shown specific acts of violence committed by the victim against third parties, and such evidence would have warranted a jury instruction on self-defense or voluntary manslaughter. Finding no errors, the Supreme Court affirmed Wright’ convictions. View "Wright v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Christopher Cushenberry appealed his convictions for felony murder and conspiracy to commit armed robbery in connection with the 2010 shooting death of Javarus Dupree. Appellant argued that the trial court erred in denying him a directed verdict of acquittal on all charges, because the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. He contended the state did not meet its burden to prove he was a party to the conspiracy and robbery and ultimate death of Dupree. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s denial of a directed verdict, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s convictions. View "Cushenberry v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Devonni Benton appealed his convictions and sentences for felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the 2009 shootings of Jasmine Lynn, who died, and Jarvis Jones, who survived. Jury deliberations in Benton’s trial began on a Friday; the court arranged for the jury to resume deliberations the next morning. Generally, the courthouse was not open to the public on Saturdays. The next day, several individuals were allowed entry to the courthouse, but a number were turned away, including Benton’s sister, mother, and grandmother. Benton contends that this violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XI (a) of the Georgia Constitution of 1983. Furthermore, Benton argued that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to present certain witness testimony. Finding no error in either of Benton’s arguments made on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Benton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2013 while he was in custody, investigators questioned a then- 18-year-old Tyler Estrada abut a Gwinnett County homicide. Estrada had been in custody in DeKalb County. At an evidentiary hearing, audio recordings of Estrada’s custodial statement were placed into evidence, the trial court determined that though Estrada invoked his right to counsel, he never waived his Miranda rights either in writing or verbally. Accordingly, the trial court granted Estrada’s motion to suppress the statement. The State appealed. Finding no reversible error to that suppression order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Georgia v. Estrada" on Justia Law

In 2011, Charles Case entered a negotiated guilty plea to aggravated assault and simple battery against his niece to resolve an original charge of child molestation. He did not appeal. After being directed to register as a sex offender, in 2014, aided by new counsel, Case filed a habeas petition alleging that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and that his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance. In early 2015, the habeas court entered an order scheduling a final hearing, which was set for February 24, 2015. However, after neither Case nor his counsel appeared at the final hearing, the habeas court entered an order dismissing the petition for want of prosecution and, in the alternative, denying the petition on the merits. Case moved to set aside, asserting that his habeas counsel had not received notice of the final habeas hearing and first became aware of the hearing when counsel received the final order denying habeas relief. The habeas court denied the motion and Case filed an application for discretionary appeal without filing a notice of appeal. Case did not follow the required procedures for petitioners to appeal adverse “final orders” in habeas cases. The Georgia Supreme Court granted Case’s application to appeal to resolve: (1) whether a habeas petitioner was required to follow the procedures of OCGA 9-14-52 (b) to appeal an order denying a motion to set aside a final order denying habeas relief, or instead must follow the procedures of OCGA 5-6-35 (a) (8); and (2) whether the habeas court erred in denying Case’s motion to set aside the final order denying his habeas petition. The Supreme Court concluded that this appeal was properly before the Court. However, the petitioner’s motion here was better classified as a motion to set aside to correct a clerical error pursuant to OCGA 9-11-60 (g), which entitled Case to a direct, rather than a motion to set aside based on an amendable defect appearing on the face of the record pursuant to OCGA 9-11-60 (d) (3) (which would have needed to come by application). Additionally, the Court found that in this case, the habeas court did not properly consider all the relevant circumstances in reaching its decision to deny Case’s motion to set aside the court’s order on his petition for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the Court vacated the decision on Case’s motion and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Case v. Georgia" on Justia Law