Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for felony murder while in the commission of arson in connection with the death of the victim. On appeal, defendant claimed that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant contended that trial counsel failed to perform as a competent attorney in preparing for trial, in fully advocating on his behalf, and in failing to take certain actions and ignoring certain exculpatory evidence pertaining to his defense which comprised of his right to counsel under Strickland v. Washington. The court held that defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of trial counsel in any of the manners claimed and his assertion that trial counsel's cumulative errors deprived him of a fair trial had no merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Chapman v. State" on Justia Law

This appeal involved a title to a house and lot in a residential subdivision in Forsyth County. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and defendants appealed. The court held that the trial court properly rejected defendants' claim of bona fide purchaser status; defendants' argument that the trial court erred in holding that the children acquired a collective two-thirds interest in the property by virtue of the 1998 quitclaim deed from their father was without merit; the trial court properly dismissed defendants' claim for equitable subrogation; the trial court did not err in dismissing defendants' counterclaim for unjust enrichment; and the trial court did not err in dismissing defendants' laches defense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. et al. v. Shelton et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for malice murder, as well as aggravated assault, armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court agreed with defendant's contention that the preprinted verdict form used erroneously instructed the jury that in order to find him not guilty of the crimes charged, the jury had to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that defendant must be awarded a new trial pursuant to State v. Kelly. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "Cheddersingh v. State " on Justia Law

The court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals to consider whether that court erred in determining that the doctrine of res judicata barred plaintiff's "complaint for breach of contract" in this litigation involving the ultimate distribution of plaintiff's father's estate. The court concluded that res judicata was a bar to the present suit where plaintiff's restyling of her complaint in terms of a breach of contract theory of recovery did not revive her cause of action for fraud that was defeated on appeal from a summary judgment ruling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Crowe v. Elder" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of felony murder and subsequently appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial. Defendant contended that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance when (a) counsel failed to call a defense expert who could purportedly refute the medical examiner's testimony that the victim only had defensive wounds on his body and thereby corroborated defendant's testimony that he acted in self-defense when the victim "slung" at him with a piece of broken glass; and when (b) counsel introduced the videotape of defendant's interrogation by the police. The court rejected defendant's contentions because defendant failed to show that counsel was deficient where a decision whether to call an expert witness was a matter of trial strategy within the broad range of professional conduct afforded trial attorneys and because counsel was not deficient for introducing the videotape as part of a reasonable trial strategy. Finally, defendant waived his contention that the trial court erred when it did not poll the jury to determine the jurors' continued impartiality. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

Wife appealed the trial court's order setting aside its final order based solely on the mistake of Husband's attorney pursuant to OCGA 9-11-60(d)(2). As an initial matter, the court held that this case did present a child custody matter subject to OCGA 5-6-34(a)(11). Thus, the grant of a motion to set aside a child custody case was directly appealable. Further, an action seeking to change visitation qualified for treatment as a "child custody case." Therefore, this case, which included a ruling eliminating Husband's visitation, was a "custody case" subject to appeal. The court also held that the trial court's ruling on Husband's motion to set aside was erroneous under OCGA 9-11-60(d)(2) where Husband did not provide the trial court with an appropriate basis to set aside its final order pursuant to the statutory provision. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed. View "Edge v. Edge" on Justia Law

Wife appealed the Final Order in her divorce action against Husband on the grounds that the trial court improperly calculated Husband's self-employment income and refused to consider the minor child's cheerleading expenses as a special expense for purposes of deviating from the statutory support guidelines. The court held that the trial court's findings were within its discretion and affirmed the Final Order. View "Ellis v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of felony murder, with conspiracy to commit robbery as the underlying felony. On appeal, defendant contended, among other things, that the trial judge violated OCGA 17-8-57 when the trial judge gave a pre-evidentiary charge to the jury which contained the statement that "the State would introduce evidence in support of the charges contained in the indictment." The court held that judicial comments "limited to a clarification of procedures and [which] did not address the credibility of witnesses or any fact at issue in the trial" did not violate OCGA 17-8-57. The court rejected defendant's contention that an incriminating statement made by him should have been suppressed where the same issue was litigated and decided in a prior proceeding between the same parties. The court further held that, since there was evidence that defendant and his co-indictees engaged in a conspiracy to rob the victim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the co-conspirator's statement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Foster v. State" on Justia Law

GSASC filed a complaint against appellants for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. GSASC requested a declaration that a 2009 annual survey issued by DCH to single-specialty, physician-owned ASCs sought information beyond the scope of OCGA 31-6-70. GSASC further requested interlocutory and permanent injunctive relief preventing DCH from requiring GSASC's members to respond to certain disputed requests in the 2009 survey. The Court of Appeals concluded that DCH did not have statutory authority to include the disputed requests in the 2009 survey and also rejected an alternative basis for affirmance when it determined that GSASC and its members were not required to exhaust administrative remedies because it would be futile and because GSASC was challenging DCH's authority and power to act. Because neither exception upon which the Court of Appeals relied to dispense with the exhaustion requirement was applicable, the court reversed its judgment and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. View "GA Dept. of Community Health, et al. v. GA Society of Ambulatory Surgery Centers" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment in favor of appellee on its claim for ejectment. Appellant contended that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment because the ejectment action was filed in violation of the bankruptcy court's automatic stay and because appellee failed to file a proof of claim to the property in her bankruptcy action. The court held that the record evidence demonstrated that neither the complaint nor the summary judgment order were entered in violation of the automatic stay. In addition, the court found no merit in appellant's contention that appellee was estopped from asserting a claim on the property based on its failure to file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings. The court also held that the trial court erred by giving res judicata effect on the quiet title judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of appellee in spite of affidavit evidence that appellant was not served with the summons and complaint in the quiet title action. Because there remained a question of fact regarding whether appellant was a party to the prior action, the grant of summary judgment on the ground of res judicata was error. Accordingly the court reversed the judgment. View "James v. Intown Ventures, LLC." on Justia Law