Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case's previous trip before the Georgia Supreme Court, Dijon Abbott was indicted for the murder of Marques Eubanks and the assaults of Latrice Nelson and Jeremy Whitehead; the Supreme Court affirmed the suppression of custodial statements Abbott made before being given Miranda warnings. In that case, the Supreme Court clarified the legal standard for evaluating post-Miranda statements made after law enforcement used a “two-step interrogation technique”; and remanded the case for the trial court to apply that legal standard to Abbott’s post-Miranda statements. On remand, the trial court again suppressed the entirety of Abbott’s statements, concluding that Abbott had not knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights under Miranda. The State again appealed. Here, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s second suppression order and again remanded the case, holding that the trial court failed to adhere to the Supreme Court's remand instructions, which explicitly directed the trial court to determine the admissibility of Abbott’s post-Miranda statements under Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), which was adopted in Georgia in Norwood v. Georgia, 810 SE2d 554 (2018) (the “Seibert/Norwood standard”). On remand, the trial court was re-directed to apply the Seibert/Norwood legal standard for the limited purpose of determining the admissibility of Abbott’s post-Miranda statements. View "Georgia v. Abbott" on Justia Law

Innovative Images, LLC sued its former attorney James Summerville, Summerville Moore, P.C., and The Summerville Firm, LLC (collectively, the “Summerville Defendants”) for legal malpractice. In response, the Summerville Defendants moved to dismiss the suit and to compel arbitration in accordance with the parties’ engagement agreement, which included a clause mandating arbitration for any dispute arising under the agreement. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the arbitration clause was “unconscionable” and thus unenforceable because it had been entered into in violation of Rule 1.4 (b) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”) for attorneys found in Georgia Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the arbitration clause was not void as against public policy or unconscionable. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded after review that regardless of whether the Summerville Defendants violated GRPC Rule 1.4 (b) by entering into the mandatory arbitration clause in the engagement agreement without first apprising Innovative of the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration, the clause was not void as against public policy because Innovative did not argue, and no court has held, that such an arbitration clause could never lawfully be included in an attorney-client contract. For similar reasons, the Supreme Court held the arbitration clause was not substantively unconscionable, and on the limited record before it, Innovative did not show the clause was procedurally unconscionable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment. View "Innovative Images, LLC v. Summerville et al." on Justia Law

Jesus Perez was convicted by jury of malice murder, armed robbery, and concealing the death of another in connection with the bludgeoning death of Boydrick Powell. On appeal, he contended the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Perez also contended the trial court erred in admitting into evidence his custodial statement and the pre-autopsy photographs of Powell’s injuries and in allowing the prosecutor to discuss the law of conspiracy during closing argument. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Perez v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Kevin Reeves challenged his convictions for the malice murder of Marquis Stephens and numerous other crimes, all committed in connection with a gunfight at a house party in 2015. His motion for a new trial was denied. On appeal, Reeves argued the trial court violated his Georgia constitutional right to be present by excluding him from several bench conferences and, relatedly, that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to object to Reeves’s exclusion from the bench conferences. Although the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in failing to merge six of the counts of aggravated assault of which Reeves was convicted with six of the counts of attempted armed robbery, it otherwise affirmed Reeves’s convictions. View "Reeves v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Marquis Studivant was tried by jury and convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the fatal shooting of Dennis Gayton. Studivant appealed, arguing: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence that was collected from a vehicle he was driving around the time of his arrest; and (3) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Studivant v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia certified two questions to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding the timing under Georgia law when a lien is created on the title of real property as between a judgment creditor and a judgment debtor: at the time the judgment is entered or at the time the writ of fieri facias on that judgment is recorded. "This timing makes a difference under federal bankruptcy law because certain transfers of the bankrupt debtor’s property may be avoided if they occur within 90 days of the filing of the bankruptcy petition." The Supreme Court responded to the district court that under Georgia law, as between the judgment creditor and judgment debtor, a lien on the title to real property is not created until the judgment is recorded, that the date of that lien is the date of recording, and the date of the lien does not relate back to the date the judgment was entered. View "Synovus Bank d/b/a First Community Bank of Tifton v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Deontae Tremayne Brooks was convicted of malice murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in connection with the shooting death of Branden “Big B” Tinch and the aggravated assault of Lenard Gay. Brooks was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. He appealed, arguing: (1) the insufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction under OCGA 16-11-133 (b); (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) trial court error in failing to grant his motion for mistrial. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed Brooks’ conviction under OCGA § 16-11-133 (b), affirmed his convictions for malice murder and the aggravated assault of Gay, and remanded the case to the trial court with direction to enter a judgment of conviction and sentence on the guilty verdicts for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under OCGA 16-11- 131, which the trial court originally merged into the conviction under OCGA 16-11-133 (b). View "Brooks v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Deanna Roberts pled guilty in federal court to a crime relating to the theft of a medical product, liquid silicone, that Roberts injected into the buttocks of Lateasha Hall, resulting in Hall’s death. When she was later indicted for state crimes arising from Hall’s death, including malice murder, Roberts filed a plea of statutory double jeopardy in superior court, contending that under OCGA 16-1-8 (c), her conviction in federal court barred the state prosecution for all crimes except malice murder. The trial court rejected that claim, and Roberts filed a direct appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. Because one of the statutory requirements for the section 16-1-8 (c) bar to apply was not satisfied here, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Roberts’s plea in bar. View "Roberts v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Ki Song Kim appealed his convictions for murder and other offenses in connection with the stabbing deaths of Young Chan Choi and Sun Hee Choi. In his sole enumeration of error, Kim claimed that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to sustain Kim’s convictions. However, the Court also concluded it had to vacate Kim’s sentences as to Counts 9 and 10 of his indictment in order to correct sentencing errors that harmed Kim. View "Kim v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dexter Anderson was convicted by jury of the felony murder of his girlfriend, Charlotta Marie Lockhart, and for possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. On appeal, Anderson contended, among other things: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for felony murder; (2) that he received an incomplete transcript of his trial proceedings; (3) that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective; and (4) that the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury on the offense of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Anderson v. Georgia" on Justia Law