Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ernest Airokhai Huff was tried by jury, and convicted of the murders of James Isaac, Ferris Weston, and Brian White, as well as conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. Huff appealed, asserting that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his custodial statement, that the trial court erred when it admitted certain evidence at trial, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Upon its review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed. View "Huff v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Fernando Hernandez challenged his convictions for malice murder and a firearm offense in connection with the shooting death of Edgar Rodriguez-Gonzalez. Appellant argued that the trial court erred in allowing the jurors to submit questions to be asked to the witnesses and in ruling that part of his custodial statement to the police was admissible. He also claimed that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hernandez v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Dijuan Marshall was convicted of felony murder and related crimes in connection with a home invasion during which Joshua Scott was shot and killed. Appellant’s motion for new trial was denied, and appealed, arguing his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain evidence adduced by the State at trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Marshall's convictions. View "Marshall v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Lonnie Ragan was convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the murder of Holly Hearn. Appellant argued on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to grant his motion for mistrial and by admitting in-life photographs of the victim adduced by the State. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ragan v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2010, a grand jury indicted Erik Williams, Jr. for the murder of Deangelo Hudgins and the aggravated assault of Albert Gilbert. Williams appealed the eventual convictions on those charges, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial, and for other alleged errors in the conduct of trial. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Williams' convictions. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Waseem Daker was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, false imprisonment, and aggravated assault of Karmen Smith; the aggravated battery of Nick Smith, and criminal attempt to commit aggravated stalking of Loretta Spencer Blatz. Daker, acting pro se, appealed, contending that the trial court treated him unfairly, that the trial court erred by denying several of Daker’s motions to recuse, and that the Georgia Supreme Court’s Rule 20 was unconstitutional. Finding none of Daker's arguments on appeal availing, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Daker v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2011, a grand jury indicted Rodney Lane for malice murder, felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault, felony murder while in the commission of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. These charges stemmed from the death of Donald Dye. On July 22, 2011, Lane was reindicted on the same charges. He was ultimately found guilty on all charges, for which he received life in prison for malice murder and consecutive prison terms on the other counts that did not merge with malice murder and that were not vacated by operation of law. He appealed, challenging the evidence presented against him and arguing he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Lane's convictions and sentences. View "Lane v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Quentin Cooks was tried by jury and convicted of murder and several other crimes in connection with the 2005 fatal shooting of Shawn Powe. Cooks appealed, contending that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court erred when it prohibited him from presenting evidence of prior acts of violence committed by Powe against third parties. The Supreme Court found no merit in Cooks’s claims, but noted that the trial court erred when it failed to sentence him for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Accordingly, Cooks' sentence was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and the case remanded for resentencing. View "Cooks v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Dewayne Reynolds appealed his convictions for felony murder and other crimes stemming from the 2012 shooting death of Willie Slack. Appellant argued the evidence was insufficient to convict, contended the trial court erred when it failed to give a requested jury instruction, and contended the trial court improperly commented on the evidence. Finding no merit to these arguments, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, but vacated the judgment in part and remanded to correct a merger error and for re-sentencing. View "Reynolds v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant James Ellison appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct void sentence. In September 1994, appellant pled guilty to malice murder and was sentenced to life in prison. Under the plea agreement, which was expressly incorporated into appellant’s sentencing order, appellant agreed that he would not apply for parole or other relief from imprisonment for at least 25 years and that he would not be considered for parole or released from confinement for any reason prior to the expiration of 25 years. In April 2015, appellant, acting pro se, filed his motion, challenging the validity of such limitations on his ability to seek or be granted parole. The trial court summarily denied appellant’s motion, and appellant brought this appeal. Less than a month after appellant filed his notice of appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court issued its opinion in "Humphrey v. Georgia," in which it addressed the validity of a plea agreement containing a provision almost identical to that here. Under the controlling authority of "Humphrey," the Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case with direction to vacate that portion of Ellison’s sentence which purported to limit his eligibility for parole in a manner not authorized by statutory law. View "Ellison v. Georgia" on Justia Law