Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court was whether the appellate court in "Georgia Dept. of Revenue v. Moore," (730 SE2d 671 (2012)) correctly determined that, once the Georgia Department of Revenue settles a refund action with one responsible party against whom unpaid sales taxes were assessed, the Department was thereafter precluded by the voluntary payment doctrine from attempting collection of any amount still owing from a second responsible party. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals' reasoning in that case was incorrect, and therefore the Court remanded the case for further consideration. View "Georgia Dept. of Revenue v. Moore" on Justia Law

Stephen and Elizabeth Schultz contracted with Benchmark Builders, Inc. for the construction of a home. The Schultzes refused to close because they claimed the home was not built in conformance with the contract and Benchmark sued for specific performance or, in the alternative, for money damages for breach of contract. The Schultzes answered and filed a counterclaim for breach of contract seeking money damages for the return of earnest money they had paid and also for the value of certain fixtures they purchased and that had been installed in the home. They also sought attorney fees resulting from the alleged breach. The jury returned a verdict form that found for the Schultzes both as to Benchmark's claim and the Schultzes' counterclaim. The jury awarded the Schultzes zero dollars on the claim for light fixtures, zero dollars for return of the earnest money, and $16,555 on the claim for attorney fees. The Court of Appeals held the Schultzes were entitled, as the “prevailing party” to the award of attorney fees pursuant to the parties' contract and thus affirmed the award. The issue before the Supreme Court on appeal was whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the parties' contract allowed for an award of attorney fees to a party that recovered no money damages or other relief that it sought. Under the terms of the contract, the fact that the jury did not award actual damages did not mean the Schultzes could not be deemed the prevailing party to the lawsuit. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision. View "Benchmark Builders, Inc. v. Schultz" on Justia Law

Appellant David Banks Brett appealed his conviction for the shooting death of Jose Garcia-Castro. In his motion for new trial, appellant alleged his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, but the trial court denied the motion, finding appellant had failed to show counsel’s performance was deficient. On appeal, appellant maintained his ineffective assistance claim, arguing that counsel failed to object to inadmissible hearsay and failed to appreciate and “adapt” the defenses available to his client during trial. Finding that that trial court did not err in denying Brett's motion for a new trial, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Brett v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Anastasia Jackson was found guilty of felony murder, armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, criminal attempt to commit armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. On appeal, she contended that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the corroboration of accomplice witness testimony, that she was prohibited from exploring the bias of one of the State’s witnesses, that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Finding no error at trial, and that Jackson did not prove she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jackson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jarmarvis Dixon appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder, and other crimes associated with that killing. Dixon moved to exclude evidence of a police interview, contending that it was conducted in violation of what he claims was a previously-invoked right to counsel. In addition, Dixon contended that counsel was ineffective in not objecting to a remark during the State’s opening statement. Finding no error at trial, and that Dixon did not prove he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dixon v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Edward Morris was convicted of murder, aggravated assault, criminal street gang activity, and related offenses in connection with incidents involving two victims in May and June of 2007. Morris appealed his conviction, contending that the trial court erred by refusing to sever a particular count from the others at trial and by admitting certain expert testimony, and that the State failed to prove venue. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Morris v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Jarvis Matthews was found guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Juan Manuel Ramirez. Appellant contended on appeal that the trial court erred by: (1) admitting his sentencing order from a prior conviction; (2) admitting similar transaction evidence (allowing the State to urge the jury to use the evidence to prove Appellant’s character, and improperly instructing the jury regarding its use); and (3) preventing Appellant from presenting evidence implicating another person in the crimes. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Matthews v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Probate Judge Andrew Bennett denied James Hertz’s application for a license to carry a weapon based on Hertz’s 1994 nolo contendere plea to five felony charges in Florida. Hertz applied for mandamus relief in superior court, alleging the denial violated the state statute and his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The superior court affirmed. Because Hertz’s nolo contendere plea makes him ineligible for a weapons carry license under Georgia law, and the statute as applied to him does not violate the United States or Georgia Constitutions, the Supreme Court also affirmed. View "Hertz v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Deanna Kipp appealed her convictions and sentences for four counts of felony murder, one count of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of cruelty to children in the first degree, one count of concealing the death of another, and two counts of making false statements in connection with the abuse and resulting death of her 18-month-old daughter, Kaylee, and the abuse of her two other minor daughters, S.K. and A.K. She contended that the jury’s verdicts of felony murder and its verdict of involuntary manslaughter were mutually exclusive, and that the trial court erred in imposing the sentences she received. Finding no merit to her contentions but that there was error in the sentencing, the Supreme Court affirmed Kipp's convictions and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. View "Kipp v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Gregory Johnson was convicted after a jury trial for the malice murder of Carol Kaye Lewis and for other related crimes. He appealed his convictions and the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial in which he raised claims of trial court error and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law