Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Floydzell Michael Johnson appealed his conviction and sentence for felony murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon stemming from the shooting death of J. B. Melton, IV. On appeal, he argued, among other things, a number of traverse jurors were excused from service without making a proper showing of good cause. Because the felony murder count was predicated upon the felony of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the trial court erred in sentencing appellant for the firearm possession charge. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated appellant's conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, but affirmed in all other respects. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Antwain Miller appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon stemming from the fatal shooting of Ricky Coverson. Miller’s sole challenge on appeal was that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no merit to Miller's assertion, the Supreme Court affirmed his sentences and convictions. View "Miller v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Darius Jordan was convicted of felony murder, armed robbery, and other crimes stemming from the shooting death of James Yarbrough. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because the court admitted evidence of his telephonic statements to a friend in violation of Miranda. Furthermore, he argued the court erred in denying his motions for mistrial, and for failing to find that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jordan v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Rayshawn White appealed his convictions for murder, felony murder, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial. Finding no merit to the alleged issues raised on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "White v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jerry von Thomas was convicted of a felony and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Because he previously had been convicted of three other felonies, he was sentenced as a recidivist. Years later, von Thomas moved the sentencing court to vacate his sentence, claiming that he should not have been sentenced as a recidivist because he was denied the assistance of counsel in connection with one of his prior convictions. The sentencing court denied his motion on the merits, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the sentencing court had jurisdiction over the motion only to the extent that von Thomas presented a cognizable claim that his sentence was void. Because von Thomas did not present a cognizable claim, his motion should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and no court should have reached the merits. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for the motion to be dismissed. View "von Thomas v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Gregory Grimes was tried by jury and convicted of the murder of Bobby Greer. He appealed, contending that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction, that he should have been convicted instead of voluntary manslaughter, and that the trial court erred by sentencing him as a recidivist. Finding no merit in these claims the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Grimes v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Randy Johnson, Jr., appealed his convictions for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and armed robbery, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that his due process rights were violated. Finding that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Prisoner Viondi Lewis filed a pro se appeal of the denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal. Lewis was indicted and charged along with three others of having committed two counts of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of armed robbery, aggravated assault, three counts of false imprisonment, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Lewis pled guilty to only one count of felony murder and was sentenced to life in prison; as part of the plea negotiations, an order of nolle prosequi was entered as to the remaining counts against him. Lewis filed a pro se motion for an out-of-time appeal, alleging that the trial court and his plea counsel failed to inform him of his appeal rights. Later he filed a "motion to amendment out of time appeal" making additional claims about the record, the voluntariness of the plea, and the conduct of his plea counsel. Following a hearing, the superior court denied the motion. Lewis filed a notice of appeal in late 2004, and the appeal was docketed in the Supreme Court in the April 2013 term. Lewis's complaints were "unavailing," and the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. View "Lewis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Joel Smith (husband) and Pamela Smith (wife) were divorced by entry of a final judgment and divorce decree. Husband subsequently was found in wilful contempt for failing to pay for health insurance for wife, failing to make mortgage payments on the marital home, and failing to turn over personal property awarded to wife in the final judgment. The Supreme Court granted husband's application for discretionary appeal to challenge the trial court's joint order holding him in contempt of the final judgment and denying his motions for new trial, to set aside or correct the final judgment. Finding no error in the trial court's rulings, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law

A grand jury returned an indictment against appellee Dwight Brown. Appellee filed a motion in abatement alleging the indictment was not returned in open court. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court agreed with appellee and quashed the indictment. The State appealed, but the appellate court affirmed. The State argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's ruling. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court. View "Georgia v. Brown" on Justia Law