Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned the trial court's termination of a family violence permanent protective order (PPO) issued against William Lovell in favor of Lynda Mandt. After a hearing, the trial court entered a written order terminating some aspects of the PPO, while leaving others including a requirement that Lovell stay away from Mandt, in place. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's termination of the PPO. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine under what circumstances, if any, a trial court could terminate a permanent protective order pursuant to OCGA 19- 13-4.1 A restrained party who seeks termination of a permanent protective order must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a material change in circumstances has occurred, such that the resumption of family violence is not likely and justice would be served by termination of the order. In reviewing cases like this one, a court should look to the totality of the circumstances, which may include the present nature of the parties' relationship, proximity of shared residences and any shared parental responsibilities; the restrained party's history of compliance with the protective order and history of violence generally both before and after its issuance; the restrained party's efforts to undergo family violence therapy or similar counseling and rehabilitation; the age and health of the restrained party; any undue hardships suffered as a result of the order; and the existence and nature of any objections the victim has to termination of the protective order. View "Mandt v. Lovell" on Justia Law

Appellant Ellery was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. He appealed, contending the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ellery v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Gregory Crook (Father) and Janet Crook (Mother) were divorced in 2011. The final judgment and decree of divorce, which expressly incorporated the parties' settlement agreement, awarded the parties joint legal custody of their two minor children; it designated Father as the primary physical custodian, and provided that, with the exception of specified holiday and summer visitation, the children would live with each parent on alternating weeks. The Decree included a deviation from the statutorily prescribed amount of child support based on the parents' agreement that "neither party shall pay child support to the other," which deviation the superior court found to be in the children's best interests. A few months later, Mother filed a petition for modification of child custody, asking, inter alia, that she be given primary physical custody of the children and that there be an award of child support commensurate with the established statutory guidelines. Father moved to dismiss. The superior court entered a final order granting Wife's petition for modification; the parties retained joint legal custody, but Wife was given primary physical custody and Husband was awarded limited, but escalating visitation. With respect to child support, the court expressly determined the total basic child support obligation, but made no findings as to each parent's "adjusted child support obligation" or each parent's "presumptive amount of child support." The Supreme Court granted Mother's application for discretionary appeal to determine whether the superior court erred in applying a "parenting time deviation" to Father's "presumptive amount of child support" on the cited bases of "shared custody" and "history of the parties." Because the superior court awarded a discretionary downward deviation in the amount of child support, but failed to comply with the appropriate statutory requirements, the final order must be reversed and the case remanded to the superior court for further proceedings. View "Crook v. Crook" on Justia Law

Appellant Jessie Ben Mathis was convicted of felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault and possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime in connection with the shooting death of Souphoth Thammavongsa. Appellant's motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed that decision and his conviction. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mathis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Chaunson McKibbins was tried by jury and convicted of murder, kidnapping with bodily injury, and concealing the death of another. He appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that the indictment failed to properly charge kidnapping with bodily injury, that the prosecuting attorney made improper and prejudicial statements in the presence of the jury, and that the trial court erred with respect to certain evidentiary rulings and jury instructions. The Supreme Court found no merit in these claims, and affirmed. View "McKibbins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Corey Blaine Coggins was found guilty of malice murder and felony murder in connection with the stabbing death of Daniel Smith. On appeal Coggins contended, among other things, that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court erred by allowing the State to improperly bolster a witness’ credibility with the introduction of a prior consistent statement. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Coggins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In November 1995, Levon Burch entered a guilty plea and was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault. More than 16 years later, he filed a motion for leave to bring an out-of-time appeal from his conviction. The trial court found that the issues Burch sought to raise in his out-of-time appeal could not be determined wholly by reference to the record, and for that reason, denied his motion. From that denial, Burch appealed. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Burch v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Douglas Brown was charged with driving under the influence (and other crimes) after he was stopped and arrested by officers at a vehicle checkpoint. Appellant filed a motion to suppress on the ground that the roadblock violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court granted the motion, and on interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals used the correct legal analysis in assessing whether the decision to implement the roadblock was made by supervisory personnel rather than field officers, for a legitimate primary purpose. The Supreme Court rejected appellant's initial argument that the checkpoint was unconstitutional because the officer who authorized it was not a programmatic-level executive. However, the trial court's determination that the officer made the decision while acting as a field officer and not in advance as a supervisor was correct, and the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court on that point. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

David Bates was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the stabbing death of his next-door neighbor. On appeal, he contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Because the evidence was sufficient to convict him on the murder and armed robbery counts and the jury found him not guilty on the burglary count, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bates v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Raymond S. Baker was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with two home invasions. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erred by denying him a thorough and sifting cross-examination of a key witness and that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. Finding that these contentions had no merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Baker v. Georgia" on Justia Law