Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Christopher Gay was convicted of escape in 2011 in Cobb County and was incarcerated in the Northeast Correctional Complex in Mountain City, Tennessee. He has filed a petition with the Georgia Supreme Court for the writ of mandamus in which he sought to have Brian Owens, the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections, to award him additional pre-trial sentence credit. Gay initially filed his petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County; however, the clerk of that court, citing OCGA 9-10-14(b), returned his petition to him without filing it. After reviewing its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court did not strike the petition from its docket for failing to meet the requirements of OCGA 9-10-14(b). Rather, the Court dismissed Gay’s petition because his petition for a writ of mandamus was one that should have been filed initially in superior court. View "Gay v. Owens" on Justia Law

Appellant City of Suwanee appealed a judgment in favor of Appellee Settles Bridge Farm, LLC in an inverse condemnation action. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the City of Suwanee's enactment of an amendment to its zoning ordinance was an unconstitutional regulatory taking of a large parcel of land owned by Settles Bridge and awarded Settles Bridge more than $1.8 million in damages. The City appealed, contending, inter alia, that the case was unripe for judicial review due to Settles Bridge’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the City that Settles Bridge should have exhausted its administrative remedies prior to initiating litigation in this matter, and therefore reversed the judgment entered against the City. View "City of Suwanee v. Settles Bridge Farm, LLC" on Justia Law

Linda Brown appealed her conviction for the malice murder of her three-year-old son, Garry. Appellant contended that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support her conviction and that her trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to call a medical expert to testify in her defense. Finding no merit to those arguments, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Association of Guineans in Atlanta, Inc. applied to the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners (BOC) for a special land use permit (SLUP) for a single-family house located in a residential area of DeKalb County and zoned as a single-family residence. In its permit application, appellant stated an intent to use the property as a "place of worship and family life center." The BOC denied appellant's application and appellant appealed to the superior court seeking a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and a writ of mandamus. After several hearings, the trial court granted the BOC's motions to dismiss and denied appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus on the merits. Appellant argued to the Supreme Court that the trial court erred when it dismissed its constitutional challenges to the zoning statute. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded with direction. The Court concluded that the trial court's ruling that appellant failed to make a prima facie case showing a violation of "RLUIPA" was in error. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Ass'n of Guineans in Atlanta, Inc. v. Dekalb County" on Justia Law

Appellant Nicholas McCoy was convicted of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of Christopher Duhart. He appealed, asserting the trial court erred by: (1) failing to suppress a videotaped statement he made to police in the course of a custodial interrogation; and, (2) refusing to grant a mistrial when a detective testified appellant was videotaped selling drugs at the scene of the crime. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McCoy v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in its conclusion that appellants failed to preserve for appeal their objection to a jury instruction. Appellants Hershell and Cindy McDowell were involved in a traffic accident in which their vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by appellee Gregory Hartzog. Appellants sued Hartzog and his employer, Optimus Solutions, LLC. Because there was some evidence that Mr. McDowell, who was driving his vehicle, may have run a stoplight before the collision and skidded into Hartzog while avoiding a third vehicle, Hartzog requested a charge on failure to obey a traffic signal. Because the Court found that the objection was properly preserved, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case back to that court for further proceedings. View "McDowell v. Hartzog" on Justia Law

Raymond Nichols appealed his conviction for malice murder in connection with the strangulation death of his mother, Alma Nichols. His only challenge was that the evidence at trial was insufficient to convict him. Finding the challenge to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nichols v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In "Norman v. Gober,"(707 SE2d 98 (2011)), the Supreme Court considered whether eleven-year-old William Howard Norman had standing to challenge the will of his maternal grandmother, Margaret Scheer, because he was not an heir-at-law when his caveat was filed. The Court found that Norman lacked standing to challenge the will because he was not "a person who will be injured by probate of [the] [W]ill, or who will benefit by its not being probated." After this opinion was issued, the Co-Executors filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and served discovery requests on the other beneficiaries to ascertain the facts surrounding the caveat. The appellant beneficiaries filed a motion to dismiss the Co-Executors’ petition for failure to state a claim, arguing there was no uncertainty of law and therefore no justification to request a declaratory judgment. Specifically, Appellants contended that (1) the prior caveat filed by Norman, which was dismissed for lack of standing, was not an actual will contest, and, therefore, the in terrorem clause could not have been violated by anyone, even by attribution and (2) the rights of the parties had already accrued and no uncertainty remained requiring direction from the court. The probate court denied the motion to dismiss and later denied Appellants’ motion for reconsideration. Finding no error in the probate court's decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Norman v. Gober" on Justia Law

Appellant Ntyono Pennie and co-defendant Torrence Sanders were convicted of the felony murder of Shirley Akins and other offenses. Appellant contended that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a detailed jury charge on proximate causation. In light of evidence and charges that the trial court gave, trial counsel’s decision not to request a separate charge on proximate causation "was not patently unreasonable and did not constitute deficient performance." Considering the jury charges that were given and the relevant evidence, there was no reasonable probability that a separate proximate cause charge would have produced a different verdict. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court properly denied Appellant's motion for a new trial. View "Pennie v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Thaddeus Porter was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Willie Clay. His motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed, asserting that the trial court erred by permitting the State to present evidence that a tipster was not a participant in the crimes and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Because appellant raised the tipster issue for the first time on appeal, it was not preserved for appellate review. Even absent the procedural waiver, however, appellant could not show his newly asserted grounds for objection would have resulted in exclusion of the challenged testimony. The challenged testimony was limited to the findings of the detective’s investigation and did not include or make reference to out-of-court statements made to him by the tipster. Accordingly, appellant showed no prejudice and his claim of ineffective assistance based on counsel’s preparation and handling of witnesses failed. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction. View "Porter v. Georgia" on Justia Law