Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A grand jury indicted Appellant Steven Regent on one count of aggravated battery and one count of aggravated assault. These charges arose out of an incident in which he twice, in quick succession, slashed his girlfriend's throat. He pled guilty, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on each count and the resulting sentence. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Regent’s convictions did not merge. The Court held that Regent’s conviction for aggravated assault merged with his conviction for aggravated battery, therefore reversing Court of Appeals. The matter was remanded for resentencing. View "Regent v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Adrian Murdock was tried by jury and convicted of murder with malice aforethought, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a first-offender probationer, and the unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, all in connection with the 2010 fatal shooting of Breon Sims. Murdock appealed, contending that the trial court erred when it declined to grant a new trial on the general grounds, when it refused his request at trial to excuse an empaneled juror for cause, and when it admitted evidence of his sister’s statements to law enforcement officers. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Murdock v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Sean Ohifemi Davis appealed his convictions for felony murder and first-degree child cruelty in connection with the 2009 death of his girlfriend’s 13-month-old daughter, Nila Faye Flagler. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court rejected Appellant’s contention that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, and affirmed his conviction and sentence for felony murder. However, the Supreme Court found that the trial court should have merged the child cruelty count into the felony murder conviction for sentencing purposes, so that portion of Appellant’s conviction and sentence for child cruelty was vacated, and the matter remanded for resentencing. View "Davis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Darrell Anderson was tried by jury and convicted of felony murder and the unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the 2007 fatal shooting of Jack Camp. Anderson appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred when it charged the jury about the unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Anderson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In September 1985, Furman Mims pleaded guilty and was convicted of the murder and kidnapping of Robert Holbert. For these crimes, Mims was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment for life. Twenty-eight years later, acting pro se, Mims filed a motion for leave to take an out-of-time appeal, contending that the acceptance of his plea was erroneous in several respects, and alleging that he was denied the opportunity to take a timely appeal because his lawyer failed to advise him of his right to appeal. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, finding that the record revealed no error in the acceptance of the plea, and so, any appeal would prove unsuccessful. Mims appealed that decision, and finding no error with the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mims v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Thaddius Stanbury was convicted by jury for the 2010 murder of Allen Blash, Jr., and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Stanbury contends that: (1) the trial court committed plain error by not providing a jury charge on the necessity of corroborating accomplice testimony; (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury charge on accomplice corroboration; (3) the State presented insufficient corroborating evidence of Salik McKenzie’s accomplice testimony; and (4) the trial court erred by failing to exclude McKenzie’s accomplice testimony. "[I]f a conviction could be affirmed in spite of the trial court erroneously providing a witness testimony instruction wholly opposite to an accomplice corroboration charge, an accused would have no way of knowing whether the jury secured his conviction through permissible means. In effect, laws and jury charges requiring accomplice corroboration would be meaningless." The Georgia Supreme Court held that this error “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings below.” The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Stanbury v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Prinson Blackwell appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing. Blackwell entered a guilty plea to malice murder and several other offenses in connection with his role in the shooting death of Keniesha Carr and the aggravated assault of Derrick Carr. As part of his plea, Blackwell agreed to provide truthful testimony at the trial of his co-indictees, Kerwin Tate and Xavier Bradford. However, on the eve of his co-indictees’ trial, Blackwell filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to OCGA 17-7-93 (b), because he had not yet been sentenced. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion to withdraw, finding "[t]here is no Federal or State constitutional provision stating that a criminal defendant may withdraw his or her guilty plea as a matter of right at any time prior to sentence being pronounced. Nor is there any express language in OCGA 17-7-93 (b) itself indicating that, although the right to withdraw a guilty plea before sentence is pronounced exists, the right cannot be waived." A review of the record revealed that Blackwell did in fact knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive this right, therefore the trial court did not err in denying Blackwell's motion. View "Blackwell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant James Hood appealed his convictions for felony murder and other crimes in connection with the 2011 stabbing death of Christopher Coon. Two of Hood's three claims on appeal raised issues under Georgia’s new Evidence Code that the Georgia Supreme Court had not previously addressed. Concluding that the trial court committed no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hood v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2011, Thomas Darling pled guilty to felony murder for having failed to promptly seek medical treatment for a minor child, and was sentenced to life in prison. In November 2013, Darling filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief challenging the voluntariness of his plea. At an evidentiary hearing in 2014, Darling’s plea counsel (among other witnesses) testified. The habeas court granted the parties 60 days to file posthearing briefs, and Terry Marlowe entered an appearance as counsel for Darling. Marlowe filed on Darling’s behalf a motion to dismiss Darling’s pro se petition without prejudice, pursuant to OCGA 9-11-41 (a) (2), claiming that testimony at the evidentiary hearing revealed that plea counsel coerced Darling’s plea by misrepresenting the date at which Darling would become parole eligible. In response to this motion, the Warden relied on OCGA 9-11-41 (a)(1), as did the habeas court. The court denied Darling’s motion, finding that witnesses had been sworn and had provided testimony at the evidentiary hearing, and that the Warden had not agreed to dismissal. The Georgia Supreme Court granted Darling’s application for a Certificate of Probable Cause to appeal to determine whether the habeas court abused its discretion by relying on OCGA 9-11-41(a) (1) to deny Darling’s motion to dismiss when the motion to dismiss was made pursuant to OCGA 9-11-41(a) (2). The Supreme Court vacated the habeas court’s order and remanded this case to the habeas court for consideration of Darling’s motion to dismiss pursuant to the terms of OCGA 9-11-41 (a) (2). View "Darling v. McLaughlin" on Justia Law

Appellant Matdrick Giddens was found guilty of five crimes, including two counts of felony murder, in connection with the shooting death of Timothy Murray, Jr. After the trial court granted Giddens' motion for new trial based on two instructional errors, he filed a plea in bar seeking dismissal of the case based on his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The trial court denied the plea in bar, and Giddens appealed that ruling. He argued the evidence at his trial was insufficient to support the guilty verdicts and that collateral estoppel barred the State from retrying him for the crimes of which he was found guilty, because he was acquitted of the aggravated assault count that was a predicate element of all of those crimes. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts. As for the collateral estoppel issue, the Georgia Court noted that the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide this very question, which divided the lower courts. The Georgia Court determined the U.S. Supreme Court's decision would be released after its two-term deadline for deciding this case, it worked through the constitutional question. After doing so, the Georgia Court joined the majority position and rejected Giddens' argument. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court’s judgment. View "Giddens v. Georgia" on Justia Law