Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around the appellant, Justin Christopher Gold, who was convicted of malice murder in connection with the stabbing death of Antonio DePass. Gold was indicted for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony. A jury found Gold guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for malice murder, plus a consecutive five years in prison for the weapon charge. Gold filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, but his sentence was modified to life in prison with the possibility of parole.Gold appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in charging the jury on excessive force and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to evidence of DePass’s good character or to a detective’s testimony about whether Gold’s conduct was consistent with an assertion of self-defense.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the trial court did not err in giving the suggested pattern jury instruction on excessive force as part of its broader instructions on self-defense. The court also found that Gold failed to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced his defense. Therefore, his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were dismissed. View "GOLD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves Darious Jones, who was convicted for felony murder in 2016, related to the beating death of Faith Parke. Jones arranged to meet Parke at the location where she was found dead. His DNA and fingerprints were found at the crime scene, including on a doorstop bar near Parke's body. Parke had injuries matching the pattern on the end of the doorstop bar. Jones challenged his conviction, arguing that the evidence was constitutionally insufficient, that the trial court erred by allowing him to decide whether to testify without further inquiry due to his mental condition, and that the trial court erred in refusing to give voluntary manslaughter-related instructions that he requested.Jones was indicted for malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault by a DeKalb County grand jury in 2015. In 2016, the jury found him not guilty of malice murder but guilty of felony murder and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for felony murder. Jones filed a timely motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court in 2023. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to uphold Jones' conviction. The court also ruled that Georgia law does not require a trial court to advise a defendant concerning his right to testify or to make the type of inquiry that Jones asserts the trial court should have made. The court further held that the trial court properly refused to give Jones' requested instructions regarding voluntary manslaughter because no evidence supported them. Lastly, the court dismissed Jones' argument that the trial court erred in sentencing him to life without parole. View "JONES v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Leslie Harris pleaded guilty to malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Michael Anthony Davenport. She later moved to withdraw her guilty pleas, asserting that certain mental health issues had prevented her from entering a knowing and voluntary plea. The trial court denied her motion. Harris was indicted for malice murder, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. She pleaded guilty to all counts except felony murder, which was nolle-prossed. Harris was sentenced to life in prison for malice murder, a concurrent life sentence for armed robbery, and a consecutive 5-year sentence for possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.The trial court denied Harris's motion to withdraw her guilty pleas. Harris timely filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, which was transferred to the Supreme Court of Georgia. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that Harris’s plea was knowing and voluntary.The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the trial court had considered Harris's mental-health diagnoses and treatment and her ability to communicate with counsel and the court to conclude that she understood the nature of the charges, rights she was waiving, and consequences of entering her plea. The court found that Harris's responses and those of plea counsel amply supported the court’s conclusion that Harris’s plea was knowing and voluntary. The court also found that the record contains no evidence that Harris's schedule of taking her medication affected her ability to enter a knowing and voluntary plea. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in determining that Harris entered her plea of her own free choice, with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. The trial court therefore acted within its discretion when it denied Harris’s motion to withdraw her guilty pleas. The judgment was affirmed. View "HARRIS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Tyler Jarel Thomas was indicted for the murder of Ashley Brown in February 2014. Prior to his indictment, law enforcement obtained Thomas's phone records, including cell site location information (CSLI), through a court order. At the time, no appellate precedent in Georgia required a warrant for such records. However, Thomas moved to suppress the CSLI, arguing it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court granted his motion, relying partly on an Eleventh Circuit decision that later reversed its stance on the necessity of a warrant for CSLI.The State asked the trial court to reconsider its suppression order in light of the Eleventh Circuit's reconsideration. Thomas argued that the end-of-term rule prohibited the trial court's reconsideration. The trial court agreed with Thomas, stating that the end-of-term rule divested it of the authority to reconsider its own prior interlocutory ruling. Thomas was found guilty of malice murder and related crimes, but a new trial was granted due to a Brady violation by the State.Upon remand to the trial court, the State again moved for reconsideration of the CSLI suppression order. This time, the trial court agreed with the State, vacated the earlier suppression order, and held that the CSLI could be tendered at trial. Thomas appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that when a new trial has been granted, trial courts are not prohibited from reconsidering their previous orders. Therefore, because the final judgment in this case was vacated by the grant of a new trial, the trial court could reconsider rulings from earlier terms. View "THOMAS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Sherman Lamont Allen was convicted for the murder of his cousin, Treston Smith, following a physical altercation. Allen had suspected his partner, Tia, of having an affair with Smith. One night, Allen found Tia and Smith together at a gas station. After Tia drove away, Allen engaged in a verbal altercation with Smith, which escalated into a physical fight. Surveillance footage showed Allen beating and kicking Smith, who was on the ground. Smith later died from his injuries. Allen was indicted for one count of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of aggravated battery. He was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for malice murder.Allen appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his request to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser offense of murder. He contended that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury instruction, as he had acted out of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation, namely, discovering Tia's infidelity with Smith.The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with Allen. It held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. The court found that there was at least slight evidence to support the instruction, namely, Allen's discovery of Tia's infidelity. The court also found that the State failed to show that it was highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict. As a result, the court reversed Allen’s murder conviction. View "ALLEN v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves Christopher Vargas Zayas, who was convicted for malice murder and a related crime in connection with the shooting death of his girlfriend, Carly Andrews. The shooting occurred in September 2018, and Zayas was indicted for multiple charges, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, family violence, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Zayas was found guilty on all five counts and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. He filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.Zayas appealed his convictions, arguing that the circumstantial evidence at trial was insufficient to exclude the alternative hypothesis that the pistol discharged accidentally as Andrews grabbed it. He also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress statements he made to investigators at the police station before he received Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court of Georgia, however, affirmed the convictions, concluding that the circumstantial evidence authorized the jury to reject Zayas's alternative hypothesis as unreasonable, that trial counsel was not deficient for failing to seek to suppress Zayas's statements, and that Zayas suffered no prejudice from any instructional error. View "ZAYAS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Isaac Taqai Howard was sentenced as a first offender to two concurrent fifteen-year sentences, with the first eighteen months in confinement and the balance served on probation. In November 2022, the State filed two petitions alleging that Howard violated the conditions of his probation. After a hearing, the trial court entered an adjudication of guilt on both petitions and resentenced Howard as a felon to fifteen years, with the first five years in confinement and the balance served on probation. Howard appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to file an application for discretionary appeal.The Court of Appeals applied its decision from nearly 40 years ago in Dean v. State, which held that the revocation of a defendant’s first-offender probation was controlled by the discretionary appeal procedure in OCGA § 5-6-35. The court reasoned that OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) required a discretionary application for appeals from orders revoking probation, making no distinction between first-offender probation and probation otherwise provided for in criminal cases.The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to determine whether Howard had the right to a direct appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) or was instead required to file a discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a). The court concluded that the entry of an adjudication of guilt and revocation of a defendant’s first-offender status is directly appealable. The court reasoned that the entry of an adjudication of guilt and sentence constitutes a final judgment and triggers the defendant’s right to an immediate appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). The court further reasoned that an appeal in this context is not an appeal from an order revoking probation and thus does not require a discretionary application. Therefore, the court reversed the Court of Appeals’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "HOWARD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves John R. Tibbetts, a teacher, and his employer, the Worth County School District. The District offered Tibbetts a contract for the upcoming school year, but Tibbetts did not return the signed contract within the stipulated time. The District then informed Tibbetts that his employment would end when his current contract expired. Tibbetts sued the District for breach of contract, arguing that the offered contract did not comply with Georgia's statutory requirements for teacher contracts because it was missing terms and contained blanks. Therefore, he contended, his employment contract for the prior school year was renewed by operation of law.The trial court granted the District's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no existing written contract between the parties that operated to waive sovereign immunity under the ex contractu clause of the Constitution of the State of Georgia. The trial court found that the District offered Tibbetts a contract that complied with the statutory requirements, but that Tibbetts did not timely accept that offer.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. It determined that the contract the District offered Tibbetts for the upcoming school year failed to comply with the requirements of the statute; therefore, Tibbetts’s contract for the previous school year was renewed by operation of law and constituted a contract in writing. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Tibbetts’s claim was one for breach of a written contract, and sovereign immunity was waived pursuant to the ex contractu clause.The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. It held that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the grant of summary judgment in favor of the District because the employment contract the District offered Tibbetts for the upcoming school year satisfied the requirements of the statute. Because Tibbetts failed to timely accept this offer, no written contract exists to support Tibbetts’s claim for breach of a written contract. Absent such a claim, there is no waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to the ex contractu clause. View "WORTH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. TIBBETTS" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal from an in rem civil-asset-forfeiture proceeding against over $1 million held in various bank accounts, real property, and other property. The State alleges that the property was used, intended for use, or constituted the proceeds derived from the commission of numerous crimes related to the theft, purchase, and sale of catalytic converters and other regulated metal property. The appellants, Garrett Smith, Stacey Smith, SmithCo Recycling, LLC, and SmithCo Transfer, LLC, claimed to be the owners of the seized property and moved to dismiss the complaint. They argued that the trial court had failed to timely hold a bench trial or order a continuance, and that the State had failed to allege the essential elements of a crime. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to address three questions. The court concluded that the appellants are estopped from arguing on appeal that the date SmithCo Transfer filed its answer was not equivalent to the date it was served with the complaint. On that basis, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely hold a bench trial or continue the trial. The court also held that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the second amended complaint adequately alleged the essential elements of theft by taking. The court therefore reversed the portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion holding otherwise. The case was remanded for further proceedings without answering the third certiorari question. View "SMITH v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

LaVante Pierre Gray was convicted for felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, in relation to the death of James Jones. The incident occurred on September 1, 2017, when Jones and Gray were arguing over a missing wallet. Jones accused Gray of stealing his wallet and demanded that Gray empty his pockets. The argument escalated into a physical altercation, during which Jones took the key fob to Gray's car. Gray shot Jones multiple times, retrieved his key fob, and fled the scene. Gray was later arrested in Ohio.Gray was indicted by a DeKalb County grand jury on January 4, 2018, on charges of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was tried before a jury in July 2021 and acquitted of malice murder but found guilty of the other charges. Gray was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder and five years for possession of a firearm, to run consecutively. Gray filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.In the Supreme Court of Georgia, Gray argued that the trial court erred by refusing to give his request for jury charges supporting the defense of justification. He claimed that he acted in self-defense to prevent a forcible felony. However, the Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that even if the trial court erred, the error was harmless due to the strong evidence against Gray. The court noted that multiple witnesses saw Gray argue with Jones, fight with him, and shoot him multiple times. The court also noted that the evidence supporting Gray's defense was weak. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Gray v. State" on Justia Law