Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2005, Henry Stubbs was convicted of armed robbery and hijacking a motor vehicle, among many other crimes, and was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 31 years. On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions in 2008. In 2012, Stubbs filed a writ of habeas corpus through an attorney, which the habeas court dismissed as untimely. He then filed an application for a certificate of probable cause with the Georgia Supreme Court to appeal that dismissal. The issue the Supreme Court considered on certiorari review was whether the habeas court erred in dismissing Stubbs' petition as untimely when Stubbs presented evidence, via a verified habeas petition, that he had not been advised of the time limitations governing habeas corpus actions. Although the Supreme Court concluded that the habeas court’s ruling about the exact date that Stubbs’s convictions became final was erroneous, the Court nonetheless affirmed the habeas court’s dismissal of Stubbs’s petition because it was untimely under OCGA 9-14-42(c)(1) — a fact that neither party disputed. The Court also concluded that Stubbs’s untimely petition was not subject to statutory or equitable tolling. The Court therefore answered the question presented “no” and affirmed the habeas court’s dismissal of Stubbs’s petition. View "Stubbs v. Hall" on Justia Law

Edward Williams appealed a superior court order dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice. Acting pro se, Williams sued DeKalb County and members of its governing authority, the Chief Executive Officer and the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners, in their official and individual capacities (collectively, “Appellees”). Williams challenged the legality of a DeKalb County ordinance, which increased the salaries of the members of the county governing authority, setting forth claims for mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief, criminal and civil penalties for violating the Open Meetings Act, and attorney fees and costs of litigation. On appeal, Williams argued the trial court erred in dismissing his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the members of the governing authority in their individual capacities for acting unlawfully in increasing their own pay. He argued the trial court erred in dismissing his claim that the County Home Rule Paragraph of the Georgia Constitution, precluded county governing authorities from having the power to increase their own pay. The Georgia Supreme Court did not reach the merits of these claims of error because Williams lacked standing to sue the members of the governing authority for declaratory relief, he lacked standing to sue the commissioners for injunctive relief, and whether he has standing to seek injunctive relief against Thurmond required proper analysis by the trial court on remand. Williams also contended the trial court erred in dismissing his claims against the commissioners for violating the Open Meetings Act before passing the salary ordinance, making them individually liable for civil penalties under the Act. To this contention, the Supreme Court agreed, reversing that portion of the court’s order dismissing Williams’ claim against the commissioners for civil penalties under the Open Meetings Act. The matter was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Williams v. DeKalb County" on Justia Law

Both the State of Georgia and Johnny Lee Gates appealed the grant of Gates’ extraordinary motion for new trial by the trial court. In Case No. S19A1130, the State argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that Gates should receive a new trial because of the discovery of new DNA evidence that was material and exculpatory. The State also argued that the trial court erred when it also appeared to grant Gates’ extraordinary motion on the basis of Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), due to destruction of evidence by the State. In Case No. S19X1131, Gates cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court should have also granted him a new trial on his claim that the process by which the jury at his 1977 trial was selected was marred by racial discrimination. Because the Georgia Supreme Court found no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in its grant of a new trial to Gates on the basis of the newly discovered DNA evidence, it affirmed that judgment in Case No. S19A1130. In light of that determination, the Court did not consider the State’s argument in Case No. S19A1130 relating to Gates’ Youngblood claim or the arguments raised by Gates in Case No. S19X1131. View "Georgia v. Gates" on Justia Law

In 2005, Appellant Contresstis Tolbert and his co-defendant Jeremy Butts were found guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2001 shooting death of Robert Funderburk. Appellant contended the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his post-arrest statements to the police and by admitting “similar transaction” evidence. Finding those claims meritless, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Tolbert v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Charles Kilpatrick, Jr. appeals his convictions related to the shooting death of Joseph Wilder. In 1998, appellant and Wilder were driving westbound on I-20 in their respective vehicles. Appellant’s friend, Marcuss Herndon, was a passenger in appellant’s vehicle. Witnesses testified that appellant’s and Wilder’s vehicles were bumping into each other on the highway. The two vehicles ultimately ended up stopped in the emergency lane with Wilder’s vehicle, which was a maroon SUV, parked behind appellant’s vehicle, which was a dark-colored truck. Witnesses stated they saw appellant, who was positioned behind the back of his truck and in front of Wilder’s forward-facing SUV, point a gun at and fire it several times into Wilder’s vehicle, all while calmly walking backwards towards his truck. Herndon, who remained in the passenger seat of appellant’s vehicle, testified that he heard gunshots, but that he did not actually see the shooting. Immediately after his arrest, appellant told police he shot Wilder in self-defense. On appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, contending the State failed to meet its burden of disproving his defense of justification. He also argued the trial court made multiple errors, including excluding his expert witness, and excluding evidence that Wilder was a member of a motorcycle gang. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s conviction. View "Kilpatrick v. Georgia" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a challenge to the results of the March 2018 special election for the mayor of the City of Blythe, Georgia, wherein Appellee Phillip Stewart defeated Appellant Cynthia Parham by a margin of four votes. Appellant filed a petition contesting the election results, alleging that illegal votes had been cast in the mayoral election. After a bench trial, the court concluded that Appellant had failed to show that enough illegal votes had been cast to change or place in doubt the result of the election. Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court and, finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Parham v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Appellant Cornelius Edwards challenged his 2018 convictions for felony murder and other crimes in connection with an attempted armed robbery of Delvin Phillips and Marvin Goodman that resulted in the shooting death of Appellant’s accomplice, Billy Favors. Appellant contended: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court failed to fulfill its role as the so-called “thirteenth juror;” (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a recording of a recording of a telephone call; and (3) the trial court committed reversible error in admitting other acts evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Edwards v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Clark Hyden was convicted by jury of malice murder, felony murder, kidnapping with bodily injury, and various other offenses in connection with the beating death of Tommy Crabb, Sr. On appeal, Hyden contended: the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his kidnapping conviction under the standard set forth in Garza v. Georgia, 670 SE2d 73 (2008); that the trial court erred by allowing the State to waive its initial closing argument; that Hyden was denied his right to a speedy appeal; and that Hyden’s trial counsel was ineffective. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hyden v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Fernando Hogan appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes stemming from the shooting death of Kilon Williams and the aggravated assault of Williams’s friend, Nicholas Gibson. On appeal, Hogan contended only that the trial court erred by granting the State’s challenge to Hogan’s peremptory strikes of three prospective jurors and reseating those jurors. Upon review of the record, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded Hogan’s conviction and sentence for the aggravated assault of Gibson should have been merged, and so it vacated that conviction and sentence. Finding no other reversible error, the Court otherwise affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Hogan v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Albert and Ashley Debelbot were tried by jury and convicted of the murder of their infant daughter, McKenzy. Following the denial of their motions for new trial, the Debelbots appealed, asserting, among other claims of error that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain their convictions and that they were denied the effective assistance of counsel. In Debelbot v. Georgia, 826 SE2d 129 (2019) (“Debelbot I”), the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed in part, concluding that the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the convictions, although it noted that the sufficiency of the evidence was a “close question.” The Court also, however, vacated in part the denial of the motions for new trial and remanded for further consideration of the claims that the Debelbots were denied the effective assistance of counsel. The trial court again rejected the claims of ineffective assistance and denied the motions for new trial. The Debelbots appealed for a second time, and this time, the Supreme Court reversed, “[t]he Debelbots have shown a reasonable probability that, but for the failure of their lawyers to object during closing argument to the gross misstatement of the law by the prosecuting attorney, the outcome of their trial would have been different.” View "Debelbot v. Georgia" on Justia Law