Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Derrick Cartwright was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. The trial court denied Cartwright's motion for a new trial and he appealed, challenging only the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Cartwright v. Georgia" on Justia Law

This divorce action involved the termination of the parental rights of the husband, who was the child's legal father for 13 years. The husband was appealing the superior court's order severing his rights as legal father and granting the biological father's petition to legitimate. Gwendolyn and William Brine were married in August 1997, just weeks after a relationship between Gwendolyn and Brian Shipp ended. The child was born in May 1998, and Brine was listed on the birth certificate as the father. Approximately 18 months later, Shipp saw Gwendolyn and asked whether he could be the father. She said that she was married and the child was not his. For the next ten years, Shipp made no more inquiries and took no further action concerning the child's paternity. He saw the child occasionally as a family friend, but did not attempt to develop a father-son relationship or provide any substantial financial or emotional support. In August 2010, a year after William filed for divorce, Gwendolyn informed Shipp that she thought he was the child's biological father; subsequent DNA testing confirmed that fact. In February 2011, Shipp moved to intervene in the divorce action and filed a petition for legitimation. Following a hearing, the superior court found that Shipp had not waived or abandoned his opportunity interest in developing a relationship with the child and that it was in the child's best interest to grant the legitimation petition. As part of the divorce decree, the superior court terminated William Brine's rights as the legal father, granted Shipp's petition to legitimate, and awarded Shipp primary physical custody of the child. William Brine filed an application for discretionary appeal, which the Supreme Court granted as having possible merit. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to terminate the legal father's parental rights, the Court reversed that decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Brine v. Shipp" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jose Alonso Martinez was not a citizen of the United States, but he became a permanent legal resident in 2008. In 2010, he entered a guilty plea to aggravated battery and received a probated sentence of seven years. As a result, Petitioner has since been taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and faced deportation and banishment from the United States. In 2011, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel. After a hearing, the habeas court granted relief, finding that plea counsel was ineffective in advising Petitioner that he "need not be concerned about immigration consequences" of entering the guilty plea. The habeas court further found that, although the trial court warned Petitioner that he would almost certainly face deportation should he proceed with the plea, he was also receiving advice from his attorney calling into question the information from the trial court, and he likely relied more heavily on counsel's advice. The State appealed the habeas court's order. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the habeas court's decision on the prejudice prong was based primarily on its finding that Petitioner "was also receiving advice from his attorney and that advice called into question the information he was receiving from the court. . . . Such a finding of a contemporaneous contradiction of the trial court, if authorized by the evidence, may undermine the curative effect of an otherwise clear warning of adverse immigration consequences. So too may prior advice by counsel to disregard any such warning. However, neither circumstance is demonstrated by the evidence in this case." Regardless of the prior erroneous advice from plea counsel, the trial court correctly informed Petitioner of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, and he therefore failed to prove that he was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance. View "Georgia v. Martinez" on Justia Law

In this premises liability action, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia certified two questions to the state Supreme Court: (1) In a premises liability case in which the jury determines a defendant property owner negligently failed to prevent a foreseeable criminal attack, is the jury allowed to consider the "fault" of the criminal assailant and apportion its award of damages among the property owner and the criminal assailant, pursuant to OCGA section 51-12-33?; and (2) would jury instructions or a special verdict form requiring the jury to apportion its award of damages among the property owner and the criminal assailant result in a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights to a jury trial, due process or equal protection? The plaintiff in this case suffered a violent attack by unknown criminal assailants while staying in a hotel and subsequently brought suit against the owner of the hotel for failing to keep the premises safe. Upon review, the Supreme Court found: (1) the jury is allowed to apportion damages among the property owner and the criminal assailant and (2) instructions or a special verdict form requiring such apportionment would not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. View "Couch v. Red Roof Inns, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Curry appealed his convictions for the malice murders of Ann Curry, Erika Curry, and Ryan Curry. Responding to a phone call from the neighbors in 1985, police found the bodies of Defendant's eight-months-pregnant wife, Ann, and those of their children, 4-year-old Erika and 20-month-old Ryan. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant asserted: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the delay of almost 24 years between the crimes and his indictment violated his due process rights under the State and Federal Constitutions; and (3) that the State improperly commented on his right to remain silent in three instances. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no merit to any of Defendant's issues raised on appeal, and affirmed his conviction. View "Curry v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the superior court improperly affirmed a damages award to Petitioner Valencia Scott on her workers' compensation claim because the ALJ erred in ruling Petitioner's deniability resulted from a fictional new accident as opposed to a change in condition, and that her claim for total temporary disability was thus not barred by the applicable statute of limitation. The Supreme Court granted review of the case to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that a "fictional new accident" could not apply to situations where an employee who suffered a compensable injury and subsequently suffers a progressive worsening of that condition whereby she must cease working completely. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Petitioner sustained a foot injury and was awarded compensation. She subsequently returned to work in a new position that required no strenuous activity, but she developed knee and gait problems as a result of the wear and tear of ordinary life. This gradual worsening constituted a change of condition, not a new accident. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision. View "Scott v. Shaw Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Leonard Small filed suit seeking ejectment and mesne profits after learning that Appellee Alphonso Irving had built a home on a lot located at 4110 Raybun Street in Savannah, which Small had purchased at a tax sale. A special master was appointed and issued an order adopted by the trial court, recommending that Small recover the premises and pay Irving for the value of the improvements. Small appealed, alleging the trial court's adoption of the special master's order was in error because the evidence was insufficient to support it. He argued further that the special master erred in concluding Small could not recover mesne profits because he held only a tax title to the property. The Supreme Court concluded it was not an error for the trial court to adopt the special master's order. However, the Court found that the trial court erred in adopting the special master's conclusion that Small could not recover mesne profits. The Court partly affirmed, and partly reversed the trial court's decision. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Small v. Irving" on Justia Law

A package containing 12.46 pounds of marijuana arrived at a post office in Hall County addressed to "Abby at 1830 Vineyard Way." The post office mistakenly notified Abby Massaro of 1930 Vineyard Way. Ms. Massaro collected the package from the post office, discovered the marijuana, and contacted police. A law enforcement officer, dressed as a postal carrier, performed a controlled delivery of the package to 1830 Vineyard Way, with other officers waiting nearby. Appellant Justin Wilson answered the door and told the undercover officer that Abby was not at home but that "the package was expected and he would sign for it." Appellant accepted delivery and was immediately arrested. Appellant told the officers that his roommate, Daniel Park, had mentioned that he was having a package containing marijuana shipped to the apartment. Appellant also stated that he believed the package was ultimately intended to be delivered to David Salinas, a friend of Park. Both Park and Salinas were convicted during separate jury trials of trafficking in marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and possession of marijuana. Their convictions were affirmed on appeal. After a motion for new trial was denied, Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed his convictions and held that "the drug trafficking statutory scheme [did not] require proof of the defendant's subjective knowledge as to the precise weight of the drugs in his possession." Appellant again appealed, and after its review, the Supreme Court affirmed: "even if we believe that the trial court's instruction to the jury that knowledge by Appellant of the quantity of the marijuana he possessed [was] not an element of the offense of trafficking constituted error, it [did] not amount to plain error." View "Wilson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant Reginald Pulley was found guilty of malice murder, theft by taking a motor vehicle, and felony theft by taking. The trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for the malice murder charge and a consecutive ten-year sentence for each of the theft charges. Appellant contended that the trial court erred in failing to give certain instructions, and that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the jury to find that the value of the items he stole exceeded $500, and thus his conviction of felony theft by taking should be reduced to a misdemeanor. Furthermore, Appellant contended that the statements he made during interrogation following his arrest were induced by a promise of benefit and thus the trial court erred in finding that his inculpatory statements in his interview with police were voluntary. Finding no error nor merit to his contentions on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentence. View "Pulley v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant Julio Moreno-Rivera appealed his conviction for malice murder (among other crimes), contending that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After a series of escalating arguments between Defendant and the victims (with whom Defendant lived), Defendant shot his victims and fled on foot, later confessing to the arresting officer. Defendant testified at trial that he shot in self-defense. On appeal, Defendant contended he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to adequately investigate and prove prior acts of violence committed by the victims in their native Mexico prior to the three moving and living in the United States. Finding that Defendant's trial counsel was not given information by Defendant himself by which she could conduct an investigation into the prior violent acts by the victims, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "Moreno-Rivera v. Georgia" on Justia Law