Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Zyderrious Platt was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, feticide, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm for the October 2009 shooting death of his pregnant wife Jelani Platt. Appellant contended on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. Finding the evidence sufficient to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Platt v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant James Newman (husband) and appellee Judy Newman (wife) were married in May 2007. Just before their wedding, they executed a 20-page type-written prenuptial agreement to which they added a handwritten provision acknowledging "that there [were] certain ambiguities contained [within] the body of this document which each party agrees to clarify and re-write within 30 days of the date of execution hereof." Wife filed for divorce in 2011. After a hearing, the trial court granted wife's motion to enforce the prenuptial agreement and entered a judgment of divorce incorporating its terms. The Supreme Court granted husband's application for discretionary appeal and affirmed the trial court's judgment: "[i]n essence, husband argue[d] that any agreement the parties may have had was voided by the addition of the language indicating their belief that the agreement contained ambiguities and their intent to clarify such ambiguities. Because the language of the prenuptial agreement demonstrate[d] the parties reached a complete agreement regarding the disposition of property in the event their marriage ended in divorce, we conclude the trial court did not err by granting wife's motion to enforce the agreement and incorporating the agreement into the final divorce decree." View "Newman v. Newman" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant Dwight Simmons appealed his conviction for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, theft by taking, possession of a firearm during commission of a crime, and possession of a knife during commission of a crime, contending, among other things, that the trial court made numerous evidentiary errors and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding that none of the alleged errors Defendant raised on appeal had merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Simmons v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Travis Wilcher was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and related crimes in connection with the 2007 shooting death of Tollie Mitchell. Appellant appealed the denial of his motion for new trial, asserting insufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary error, and error in the jury charge. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wilcher v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Christopher Young was tried and convicted with his codefendant, Patrick Satterfield, for the 2008 felony murder and armed robbery of Richard Boynton, Sr., the burglary of the Boynton home, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Young, who was also convicted of misdemeanor possession of marijuana, appealed the judgment entered on the convictions. Specifically, Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence admitted at trial to convict him. Furthermore, he contended the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to re-open its case and present testimony of two witnesses after it had rested, and in denying his motion in limine to redact from the testimony of the victim's neighbor all references to Appellant. Finding no abuse of discretion, and that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed with respect to those issues. However, because Appellant's burglary conviction served as the predicate felony for the felony murder conviction, the Court held it was error to sentence appellant for both felony murder and burglary. Accordingly, the Court vacated the separate judgment of conviction and sentence for burglary, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Young v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Johnny Johnson appealed his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer, both in connection with the death of Deandre Phillips. Finding no merit to the alleged errors Johnson raised on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Stacey O. Lanham of the stabbing death of Gerald Mutcherson in connection with a drug deal. At trial, Lanham admitted killing Mutcherson, but claimed it was in self defense. On appeal, Lanham contended that the State failed to establish venue and the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the burden of proof for venue. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Lanham v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Andrea Brown Jacobs and several family members holding ownership interest in certain undeveloped real property filed a partition action in January 2006 after another family member, Mary Young, refused to sign a contract for the sale of the property. The parties entered into a consent writ of partition which provided for the sale of the property pursuant to OCGA 44-6-166.1. However, neither Young nor any other party in interest tendered the sums necessary to purchase petitioners' shares of the property. Mary Young then deeded her interest in the property to the Mary E. Young Revocable Trust and died one day later. In 2010, the case appeared on a pretrial calendar; the property not having been sold and there being no appearance by Young or anyone on her behalf, the trial court struck Young's pleadings, entered judgment in favor of the petitioners, and appointed three commissioners to conduct the sale of the property consistent with the requirements of OCGA 44-6-167 through 169. Because the property had not been sold and the owners of the property still were unable to reach an agreement with regard to its disposition, the court, believing that a mandated public sale would cause financial loss to all owners, amended its 2010 partition order to provide for the listing of the property with a particular broker with the terms of the sale to be established by a majority of the previously appointed commissioners. The 2010 judgment was quickly voided by the trial court after certain petitioners alleged counsel had acted without authority in seeking the partition order. In September 2011, petitioner Florence Brown through new counsel filed a motion for order for public sale. After a hearing on Brown's motion, the trial court entered an order for public sale and appointed three commissioners to conduct the sale. The sale was advertised and the property sold to the highest bidder. Appellant Jacobs appealed orders in Case No. S12A1340. In Case No. S12X1342, Brown filed across-appeal stating she was satisfied with the trial court's orders and was cross-appealing only to ensure the entire record was included on appeal. Because the Supreme Court found that all parties received proper notice of the partition action and in fact, agreed to the entry of a final consent judgment of partition which gave rise to the trial court's authority to order the public sale, the trial court's orders confirming the sale of the property and directing the parties and parties in interest to execute the deeds were affirmed. View "Jacobs v. Young" on Justia Law

Defendant Donavon Shane Leger appealed his convictions for malice murder and aggravated battery in connection with the death of his estranged wife, Tracy Leger. He contended that in three instances the State violated the requirements of the reciprocal discovery rules and that this should have resulted in the exclusion of the evidence at issue. Finding Defendant's arguments of error to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Leger v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Frederick C. Hastings (Husband) appealed a final divorce decree which awarded primary physical custody of his two children to Nichole Hastings (Wife). Husband is the biological father of both children, whereas wife is the adoptive mother of one child and the biological mother of the other. At the time the couple married in August 2006, wife was aware husband's former girlfriend was pregnant. Following the child's birth in October 2006, husband's paternity was established and the couple obtained custody with wife eventually adopting the child. In February 2009, wife gave birth to the couple's second child. Husband filed for divorce in February 2011. Following mediation which resolved most issues between the parties, the trial court held a hearing with respect to the issues of custody and child support. Both parties testified and, after considering the evidence, the trial court found it was in the best interest of the children for wife to be awarded primary physical custody. The court declined to split physical custody of the children between the parents, finding that to do so would cause emotional harm. After awarding joint legal custody, the court awarded child support to wife within the statutory guidelines. Applying the requirements of OCGA 19-7-1 (b.1) to the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was in the best interest of the children to remain with wife, or that splitting the siblings would cause emotional harm and was not in their best interests. View "Hastings v. Hastings" on Justia Law