Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Arthur (a/k/a “Ricky”) Starling was convicted of murder, aggravated assault, third degree child cruelty, and related offenses in connection with the Independence Day 2010 shooting death of his long-time girlfriend at her home in the presence of several of her family members. Starling appealed, arguing he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and that the trial court erred in admitting his statements to law enforcement officers. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Starling v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Johnathan Durden was convicted of malice murder and related offenses in connection with the stabbing death of Ricky Grice, Jr. Durden appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to grant his request to quash his indictment and in failing to give a curative instruction after alleged improper comments were made by the prosecutor during closing argument. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Durden v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Bajrodin Zilke was charged with two counts of driving under the influence and several other traffic violations. He moved to suppress evidence of a breath test, arguing that Decari Mason, a POST-certified police officer employed at Kennesaw State University (“KSU”) lacked jurisdiction to arrest him because, without dispute, the traffic stop did not occur on or near KSU property. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision to grant appellant’s motion to suppress, holding that a POST-certified campus police officer was authorized to make arrests for traffic offenses committed in his presence though outside the territorial limits of the campus at issue. he Supreme Court agreed that Officer Mason had no authority to effect a custodial arrest of appellant outside the jurisdiction conferred by OCGA 20-3-72, and reversed the Court of Appeals. View "Zilke v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dante Hayward's application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied, and the Supreme Court granted his request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal that denial. In 2007, Hayward pled guilty on drug charges and received an aggregate sentence of twenty-five years, with eight to serve in prison, and seventeen on probation. Hayward was released on parole in 2009; a little over a year later, the State moved to revoke Hayward's probation based on allegations he was arrested and charged with three new criminal offenses. The trial court subsequently revoked the balance of Hayward's aggregate sentence, leaving him to serve a little over twenty years in prison. Hayward argued that the habeas court erred in finding the trial court's revocation of his parole was not a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. The Supreme Court found that "[a] judicial attempt to control parole conditions 'violates the constitutional provision regarding the separation of powers.'" Hayward had been granted parole by the Parole Board and was in its legal custody until the expiration of his sentence, or until pardoned. No revocation of a probated sentence "shall be effective while a defendant is in the legal custody of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles." The Court therefore reversed the habeas court's denial of Hayward's petition for relief and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hayward v. Danforth" on Justia Law

Appellants Joshua Marchman and Joshua Arnold were involved, along with another perpetrator, in a two-day crime spree in the summer of 2009 that resulted in the shooting deaths of Nicholas Garner and Lateisha Weatherspoon. Appellants were tried jointly before a jury and both were found guilty of the crimes with which they were charged, including two counts of malice murder. They appealed, challenging the evidence presented against them, and admission of some of that evidence into the record. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Marchman v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Jamel Humphrey appealed a trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw guilty plea. In July 1998, Humphrey pled guilty to murder and was sentenced to life in prison. Pursuant to his plea agreement with the State, the trial court’s sentencing order provided that Humphrey would be eligible for parole, but only after serving 25 years of his sentence. A decade and a half later, Humphrey moved to vacate his sentence, and the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the sentencing court had lacked the authority to impose limitations on parole eligibility that conflicted with those prescribed by statute, and thus concluding that “[t]hat provision of the sentence - but only that provision - must be vacated.” Subsequent to the entry of the Court's opinion but prior to our issuance of the remittitur, Humphrey filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. After the remittitur issued, the trial court entered an order vacating “only that portion of Humphrey’s sentence that purports to limit Humphrey’s eligibility for parole.” The trial court thereafter summarily denied Humphrey’s motion to withdraw. Humphrey appealed, contending that, after the Supreme Court directed that his sentence be partially vacated, he had the right to withdraw his plea in its entirety at any time before the trial court re-sentenced him. The Supreme Court disagreed, and concluded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Humphrey's motion. Thus, rather than denying the motion, the trial court should have dismissed it. View "Humphrey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Joshua Clark was convicted by jury for the felony murder of Jermaine McNeil and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Clark argued on appeal of his conviction that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court omitted a necessary jury instruction. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Clark v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Brandon Philpot and Travis Yarbrough were arrested for crimes associated with the shooting death of Aaron Holloway and the aggravated assault of four other victims during an armed robbery in 2010. Philpot was identified in a photo line-up by one of the victims. He was questioned for about an hour by detectives from the Atlanta Police Department, starting in an interview room at the police station and then continuing outside so Philpot could smoke a cigarette. The entire interview was audio recorded, apparently surreptitiously, with a device one of the detectives had on his person. Near the end of the interview, Philpot admitted that he helped Yarbrough commit the crimes by holding one of the victims at gunpoint. Philpot never signed a written waiver of his rights. Philpot and Yarbrough were later indicted for murder and other crimes. Philpot filed a motion to suppress the statement he gave when interrogated by the detectives. The trial court granted the suppression motion, ruling that Philpot had unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and had not thereafter reinitiated conversation with the officers or waived his right to counsel. The State appealed. But finding no error in the trial court's suppression decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Georgia v. Philpot" on Justia Law

Appellant Dorunte Williams was convicted of the 2007 malice murder of Stacy Barnett, aggravated assault involving family violence against Teresa Dubose, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by admitting a hearsay statement under the necessity exception. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellee Pedro Alvarez was tried by a jury and convicted of malice murder and other offenses arising out of the shooting death of Ainsley Jackson. Immediately before the shooting, appellee observed Jackson and appellee’s brother in a fist fight over the sale of cocaine to a person they both claimed as a customer. After appellee’s brother lost the fight, appellee retrieved a shotgun from a nearby apartment, went back outside, and fired two shots at Jackson. Although the brother was subpoenaed to testify at trial, he failed to appear. In both its opening statement and closing argument, the State referenced the statement the brother made to police shortly after the incident. Appellee objected to the reference to the statement made during the closing argument and the trial court sustained the objection. In his motion for new trial, appellee claimed the State nevertheless continued to reference the inadmissible statement. In granting the motion for new trial, the trial court found the State’s conduct in referencing the brother’s statement in its closing even after the court sustained appellee’s objection, and in implying that the statement incriminated appellee, was improper and prejudiced appellee’s right to a fair trial. The court also found it had committed plain error when it failed to instruct the jury that the State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that appellee’s conduct was not justified despite being requested to do so in appellee’s written requests to charge. The State appealed, and finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Georgia v. Alvarez" on Justia Law