Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Husband and wife were divorced pursuant to a final judgment and decree entered after wife failed to appear for a scheduled final hearing to determine child custody. After the trial court denied wife's motions to set aside, for new trial, and for reconsideration, she filed an application for discretionary appeal. The court held that the trial court was authorized to strike wife's pleadings; wife's failure to appear was not excused; the record did not support wife's claim of wilful participation in the proceedings; the court need not address wife's contentions that she was denied her right to a jury trial or to present and object to the introduction of evidence because the trial court was authorized to strike her pleadings; wife was provided a full hearing on the issue of child custody which she chose not to attend and she failed to set forth a valid due process claim; and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making its property award. View "Pennington v. Pennington" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a pro se complaint for a preliminary injunction and other relief, seeking, among other things the return of the records that the Rossville Police had seized during a search, claiming that he needed the records to comply with the annual filing requirements set forth in OCGA 16-12-22.2(j). The court concluded that appellant wanted the trial court in this civil case to interfere with his ongoing criminal prosecution, so the trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint. View "Mohwish v. Franklin., et al." on Justia Law

This case arose out of a contractual dispute between the city and its contractor and sub-contractor concerning the design and construction of an underground parking garage. At issue was whether the city's petition for a writ of certiorari to the court of appeals to decide whether that court erred when it determined the trial judge did not err when, having been presented with a motion to recuse him, he denied the motion rather than referred it to another judge. The court held that, since the affidavits at issue raised a reasonable question about the trial judge's impartiality that required the assignment of the motion to recuse to another judge, the court of appeals erred when it affirmed the trial judge's denial of the motion to recuse for failure to meet the requirement of USCR 23.5. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Mayor & Alderman of the City of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial after he was found guilty of, among other things, felony murder. The court held that defendant's objection that the State did not move for correction of the record and properly comply with the procedural requirements of OCGA 5-6-41(f) was without merit and, moreover, the trial court was authorized to conclude that, to the extent that OCGA 5-6-41(f) was applicable, the required hearing was held with notice to both parties and the oath was administered. The court also held that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow the introduction of the transcript of a witness' prior testimony. Finally, the court held that defendant failed to meet his burden of showing any substantial likelihood of a different result but for counsel's deficient performance and the court therefore found that there was no error in the trial court's rejection of defendant's claim of ineffective assistance. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

Circle Y filed a complaint alleging, among other things, breach of contract when the school district terminated a construction management services contract with Circle Y. The trial court denied the school district's motion to dismiss and the court of appeals affirmed. The court held that, in light of the determination by the court of appeals that the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss because Circle Y's complaint alleged facts that, when taken as true, established that the contract was not void as a matter of law due to voter approval of the educational local option sales tax, it was not necessary for the court of appeals to construe OCGA 20-2-506(h) in order to resolve the appeal. Accordingly, the court remanded to the court of appeals with direction that it vacate that portion of the Division order that addressed OCGA 20-2-506. View "Greene Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Circle Y Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial after he was found guilty of malice murder. Defendant contended that the trial court erroneously failed to conduct a hearing on his notice of intent to introduce prior acts of violence by the victim against third parties and thus made no ruling as the admissibility thereof. The court held, however, that defendant waived his right to the hearing and ruling under USCR 31.6. The court also held that, assuming that trial counsel's performance was deficient, there was no reasonable probability that the result of the jury trial would have been different even if the evidence defendant now brought forth had been admitted. Finally, the court held that there was no denial of due process related to the delay in holding a hearing on his motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Glover v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from an order denying a filing of a petition for writ of mandamus. Appellant sought to file a petition for mandamus to compel judges of the court to dismiss his citation for speeding, to recuse one of them for reviewing his pleading, and to "impeach" certain of them due to alleged misconduct. Because appellant failed to carry his burden and his petition showed on its face "such a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact that it cannot be reasonably believed that the court could grant any relief against any party named in the pleading," the court concluded that the trial court did not err by denying the petition. View "Gilbert v. Pridgen, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for murder and for possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. The court held that the trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion for a new trial where the evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. The court also held that the trial court did not err when it refused to give defendant's requested charge on mere presence where there was no basis for the trial court to give such a charge. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Flowers v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from the probate court's ruling that OCGA 15-9-120(2) was not a special law in violation of Article III, Section VI, Paragraph IV(a) of the 1983 Georgia Constitution. The court held that OCGA 15-9-120(b) satisfied the elasticity requirement of a general law, and the probate court erred in construing section 15-9-120(2) to mean that a probate court always would have jurisdiction to hold jury trials once its county passed the population threshold, even if the county's population dropped below the threshold in a future census. It also erred in ruling that, so construed, the statute would not be a special law. However, the probate court reached the right result, and so its ruling that OCGA 15-9-120(2) was a constitutional general law could be affirmed under the right-for-any-reason doctrine. The court also held that the parties' arguments regarding whether a right to a jury trial was triggered when the lawsuit was filed or when they started trial were moot. Finally, the court held that appellee's demand for a jury trial was timely. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Ellis v. Johnson, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for malice murder, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime in connection with the fatal shooting of two victims. Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission into evidence of certain testimony. The court held that the challenges were without merit where the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted and where defendant failed to object to the admission of the evidence at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bailey v. State" on Justia Law