Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The City of Atlanta ("city"), which required the payment of hotel occupancy taxes pursuant to OCGA 48-13-50 et seq., brought an action against Hotels.com and on-line travel companies (collectively, "OTCs"), which book hotel rooms and make other travel arrangements for customers who access their services over the internet, alleging that the retail room rate was the appropriate amount upon which to base the hotel occupancy tax and seeking injunctive relief, as well as back taxes. At issue was whether the trial court erred when it determined that the "rent" for occupying a city hotel room was the room rate paid by the consumer rather than the negotiated wholesale rate between the OTCs and the hotel; when it issued the injunctive relief; when it voided those portions of the OTCs' contracts which provided that hotel occupancy taxes would be collected and remitted based on the negotiated wholesale rate; and when it held that the city did not have a remedy for back taxes. The court affirmed the trial court and held that the retail room rate was the taxable amount of "rent" under the city's ordinance where the consumer could not obtain the right to occupy the room without paying the retail room rate charged by the OTCs. The court also held that the trial court did not err in issuing its injunctive order where there was no governmental authority in the city, or in the state, that required any OTCs to collect hotel occupancy taxes. The court further held that, because the injunction provided for the proper collection and remittance of the city's hotel occupancy taxes should the OTCs elect to continue to act as third-party tax collectors, the trial court's error in reaching a determination that the contracts at issue were void was improper but the error was effectively moot and provided no basis for removal. The court finally held that the city failed to identify a benefit it had conferred on the OTCs and, accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the OTCs was sustained.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courtâs conviction of Appellant Timothy Hammond for sexual battery, aggravated sodomy, kidnapping with bodily injury, aggravated assault, burglary and false imprisonment. Appellantâs trial was in 2006. At trial, Appellant requested that the judge give a jury charge that described the âasportationâ element of the kidnapping charge to be described as: âthe movement necessary . . . must be more than a mere positional change. It must be movement that is not merely incidental to the other criminal act, but movement designed to carry out better the criminal activity.â Instead, the court issued the pattern jury charge on kidnapping that was applicable at the time. In 2008, the Supreme Court overruled prior law regarding the need for only slight movement to satisfy the asportation element of kidnapping, and set out four factors for courts to decide whether the asportation element was met. Appellant sought judicial review of his case to decide whether the trial courtâs use of the pattern jury instruction instead of the one he requested constitutes reversible error. âThis Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have repeatedly held that a substantive change in case law should be applied retroactively and that a substantive change includes decisions that remove certain conduct from the reach of criminal statutes.â In this case, the Court held that its prior ruling in Garza v. State (the case that changed the legal definition of asportation) was substantive, and should be applied retroactively. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Appellantâs conviction.

Appellant Jimmy Jones was convicted of murder and firearms offenses in connection with the shooting death of Latoya Singleton. At trial, Appellant asserted a defense of accident, testifying that he went to the victimâs home to check on their infant who had an ear infection. Appellant testified that he remembered he had left a handgun under the mattress in the victimâs bedroom, and went to retrieve it. The victim began crying when she saw Appellant with the gun, and he reassured her that the gun was not loaded. Testifying that he acted to allay the victimâs fears, Appellant held the victim in one arm, and pointed the gun downward on her head, believing she would calm down if she heard the gun click harmlessly when he pulled the trigger. The gun fired. Appellant fled the scene on foot. He later turned himself into police. Appellant contends that the evidence in this case did not support the juryâs verdict, as it was entirely circumstantial and did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that he acted without criminal intent. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. The Court affirmed the lower courtsâ decision to deny Appellant his motion for a new trial.

Petitioner Devon Richardson appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition in which he sought to be released on bail pending his trial on criminal charges. Petitioner was arrested December 9, 2008 in New York for the murder of Carl Joyner in Chatham County. He was thereafter held in custody. Because the murder charge was not heard by a grand jury within 90 days of the arrest, the trial court was required to set a bond for Petitioner. On March 18, 2009, the court set bond at $50,000. Later Petitioner was indicted for numerous crimes stemming from Joynerâs death. On March 31, the court filed the bond order and issued a bench warrant for the new charges. On June 19, 2009, the court denied bond. One year later, Petitioner sought a habeas petition seeking release because the bond issued in early March 2009 applied to the new charges. State law requires a trial court to grant bail only on crimes for which the defendant has been incarcerated for 90 days without having those charges heard by a grand jury, and not on other crimes with which the defendant is later charged. The Supreme Court finding no error affirmed the habeas courtâs decision.

After 16 years of marriage, Michael Abt filed for divorce from his wife Kerry. The couple had two children. The trial court conducted a temporary hearing and awarded the parties joint custody of the children with the wife being the primary custodian. During the next few months, the children revised their election of custodial parent because the wife had moved her new boyfriend into her home. The wife moved to have a guardian ad litem appointed to address the childrenâs decisions for custodial parent. On the eve of trial, the parties announced they had settled the custody issues; remaining issues were tried to a jury. Following the trial and entry of the verdict, the parties entered a consent agreement adopted by the court which granted a new trial. In the agreement, the parties agreed to a non-jury trial and prohibited the children from being in the presence of the wifeâs new boyfriend. After the non-jury trial, the court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce, and ordered wife to pay husband attorney fees. The wife filed an application for discretionary appeal claiming the lower court abused its discretion in its award of fees. The Supreme Court held that the record demonstrated that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney fees, and affirmed the lower courtâs decision.

Appellant Sammy Brinson, Jr. was convicted and sentenced for felony murder and aggravated battery in connection with the death of his infant daughter. He appealed his conviction, asserting among other issues, that the State failed to prove proper venue in Effingham County. The State demonstrated that the crime occurred at Appellantâs address in the City of Rincon, but failed to show that Rincon lies entirely within Effingham County. However, the record shows that Effingham County EMS was dispatched to Appellantâs residence, and that Appellantâs arrest warrant by Effingham County showed his address to be in Effingham County. Finding the record sufficient to allow a rational trier of fact to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision and found no error for appeal.

Donald Greenwood and Joan Greenwood were divorced November 6, 2008. Pursuant to the divorce decree, the Husband was awarded the marital residence; however the decree required him to refinance the residence before October 1, 2009 in order to remove the Wife completely from the mortgage on the home; failing to do so under the decree accrued penalties payable to the Wife. The Husband did not refinance the home as required, and he did not pay the Wife any penalty. The Wife filed a motion for contempt on June 29, 2010. After a hearing, the trial court entered a final order September 21, 2010, holding the Husband in contempt for failure to pay the penalty. The court ordered that rather than as an immediate payment, the penalty would be converted into a lien against the residence. The court would not force the sale of the residence to remove the Wife from the mortgage. The Wife filed an application for discretionary review of the lower courtâs ruling. The Supreme Court found the trial court erred by improperly modifying the divorce decree by imposing the lien on the marital residence and by giving the Husband âa reasonable period of timeâ beyond October 1, 2009 to remove the Wife from the mortgage. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

After a jury trial, Appellant Carlos Martinez was found guilty of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. The trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for malice murder. Appellant received a consecutive term of five years for the weapons charge. Appellant sought judicial review of the lower courtâs denial of his motion for a new trial. He contends that the evidence proffered at trial was insufficient to support his convictions as there were defense witnesses who testified that someone else and not Appellant was the actual shooter. Furthermore, Appellant contends there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the Stateâs witnesses. The Supreme Court found that the record shows Appellant has failed to demonstrate that his proffered witnesses would testify at trial, and that the âinconsistenciesâ would not amount to error affecting the outcome of his trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision.

Appellant Damien Norris and his co-defendant Demarcus Armour were jointly tried before a jury. Both were found guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The separate aggravated assault count against Norris was merged into the felony murder verdict. The trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced Norris to life imprisonment for murder. Although the trial court orally sentenced Norris to a consecutive five-year term for the weapons charge, the written judgment reflects a sentence of life imprisonment for both the murder and the weapons offense. A motion for a new trial was denied, and Norris appealed. The Supreme Court found that the evidence at trial was sufficient to allow a rational trier of fact to find Norris guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. However, the Court noted that the trial courtâs sentence of Norris to life imprisonment for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony exceeded the statutory maximum term-of-years sentence. The Court therefore affirmed the conviction, but remanded the case in part for re-sentencing within the statutory guidelines.

Husband and Wife divorced in March, 2010; Wife filed a discretionary appeal with the Supreme Court seeking the inclusion of certain evidence and an award of attorneys fees. Wife maintains the trial court denied her the ability to present evidence pertaining to her husband's post separation adultery, income and assets before rendering its decision. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's holding, finding no evidence of error in the records to grant Wife's appeal.