Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Criminal Law
Wright v. Georgia
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
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Cushenberry v. Georgia
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
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Benton v. Georgia
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
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Georgia v. Estrada
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
Case v. Georgia
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
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Williams v. Georgia
Anthony Williams appealed his conviction and sentence for malice murder in connection with the 1992 fatal shooting of Jeanette Woodson. He challenged the admission at trial of similar transaction evidence and a portion of the State’s closing argument, which he contended constituted improper comment on his failure to testify. Finding the challenges to be unavailing, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Lupoe v. Georgia
Larry Lupoe, Kyshawn Williams, and Jacobey Carter were found guilty at trial of the 2012 malice murder of Tavares Moses, the aggravated assault and armed robbery of Carlos Wilson, the aggravated assault of Deandre Miller and Jumario Booker, and related crimes. All appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the three appellants’ convictions. However, the Court identified merger errors in sentencing that required vacating their sentences in part and remanding for resentencing View "Lupoe v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Johnson v. Georgia
Appellant Sherwin Johnson was awaiting trial on felony murder and other charges in connection with the April 2014 shooting death of Kevin Pierre. In May 2015, the trial court entered an order denying Appellant’s motion for discharge and acquittal on speedy trial grounds, and on June 5, 2015, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal of that order. The Supreme Court found that the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion with respect to his statutory right to a speedy trial, and affirmed that portion of the trial court’s ruling. However, the court failed to make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable the Supreme Court to evaluate the denial of Appellant’s motion with respect to his constitutional speedy trial right. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s ruling in that regard and remanded for the entry of an order containing appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court did not address Appellant’s many other enumerations of error, finding they all lacked merit. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
McCain v. Georgia
Appellant Cleve McCain was convicted of malice murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer, all relating to the 2007 shooting death of Whitt Timms. The trial court denied appellant’s motion for new trial, and he appealed, arguing the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction. After review of the trial court record and finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "McCain v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Sheard v. Georgia
Appellant Elliot Sheard was convicted of murder and associated crimes in connection with the stabbing death of Charles Elder. A grand jury indicted Sheard – along with two co-defendants – on the charges of murder, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, felony murder predicated on armed robbery, felony murder predicated on burglary, aggravated assault, armed robbery, and burglary. Following a joint trial conducted in late August and early September 1998, a jury acquitted Sheard of murder but found him guilty of all other offenses. After merging the felony murder and aggravated assault verdicts, the trial court sentenced Sheard to life imprisonment for felony murder predicated on aggravated assault and to consecutive terms of 20 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery and burglary, for a total sentence of life plus 40 years. A jury acquitted one co-defendant of all offenses and found Sheard guilty of all offenses. In its May 2014 order denying Sheard’s motion for new trial, the trial court found – based on its own recollection of the 1998 trial and its standard practice – that the closing arguments of the parties were unremarkable, that the transcript of the charge conference established that the jury was adequately and appropriately charged, that testimony recounting a number of questions from the jury was not credible and was, in fact, unlikely, and that it was unlikely the jury was given an "Allen" charge but, if one were to have been given, it would have been a pattern charge. Sheard appealed, arguing that missing portions of his trial transcript rendered his appeal meaningless. In light of a number of factors complicating the absence of portions of the trial transcript, the Supreme Court agreed that Sheard was entitled to a new trial and reversed the judgment of the trial court. View "Sheard v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law