Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Shontori Gooden appealed after the denial of her motion to withdraw her plea of guilty to felony murder, asserting as her sole enumeration of error that the case should be remanded for a hearing on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. In 2016, Gooden was indicted for felony murder and other crimes arising out of the October 2016 shooting of Nyla Foster. Represented by a public defender, Gooden entered a negotiated plea of guilty to felony murder and was sentenced. Through different counsel she filed a motion to withdraw her guilty plea some time later; as soon as the hearing on that motion began, new counsel moved for a continuance. Counsel stated at first, Gooden wanted to drop her motion to withdraw her plea. He sent the necessary papers to her to withdraw the motion, but she signed them on the wrong signature line; he sent them to her again, but she signed them in too many places, including the signature line for a witness; he sent them to her a final time, but he received no response. He concluded that it would be simpler to have Gooden attend the hearing and withdraw the motion in person, but when he met with her immediately before the hearing, she told him that she wanted to proceed with the motion to withdraw her guilty plea after all. Counsel also informed the court that Gooden had told him that she had mental health issues and refused medication while detained at the county jail but that she had begun taking medication again once in state custody and “is thinking better and that’s why she wants to go forward.” The trial court denied the motion for a continuance and went forward with the hearing. Daniel called no witnesses and presented no evidence but argued that the public defender should have moved for a psychiatric evaluation before allowing Gooden to enter a guilty plea. The Georgia Supreme Court determined could not meet her burden of showing her plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance and affirmed denial of her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. View "Gooden v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Kyle Strother was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Cristobal Becerre-Contreras. Appellant argued on appeal: (1) that the evidence presented at his trial was legally insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the trial court failed to act as the “thirteenth juror” when it denied his motion for new trial; (3) that the court erred by admitting character evidence related to gang activities and other murders; (4) that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by “opening the door” to that character evidence; and (5) that he was denied a fair trial when one of his co-defendants allegedly testified falsely. The Georgia Supreme Court found each of Appellant’s claims was meritless, so it affirmed. View "Strother v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant James Spell was tried and convicted of two murders, an aggravated battery, an aggravated assault, and two firearm offenses, all in connection with the fatal stabbing of his ex-wife and the fatal shootings of her parents. On appeal, he claimed he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The Georgia Supreme Court found no merit in this claim, but noted the trial court erred when it failed to merge the aggravated battery and aggravated assault with one of the murders of which Appellant was convicted. Accordingly, the convictions for aggravated battery and aggravated assault were vacated; the convictions were affirmed in all other respects. View "Spell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to address whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing as moot the appeal of a juvenile delinquency adjudication. M. F. was found delinquent for criminal attempt to enter an automobile, for which M. F. was placed on probation for 12 months. M.F. appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's adjudication of delinquency. When M.F.'s probationary sentence concluded, the Court of Appeals issued an order in which it declined to reach the merits of M. F.’s appeal, concluding that his case was moot because his probationary sentence had expired and because M. F. “has not shown, on this record, any adverse collateral consequences arising from the juvenile court’s adjudication of him as delinquent.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a juvenile who appeals his adjudication of delinquency was not required to show adverse collateral consequences in the record; such consequences would be be presumed. The Court concluded the Court of Appeals erred, and its order was reversed and the matter remanded for consideration on the merits. View "In the Interest of M.F." on Justia Law

At issue in this case is whether the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (“EPD”) properly issued a permit to the City of Guyton to build and operate a land application system (“LAS”) that would apply treated wastewater to a tract of land through spray irrigation. Craig Barrow III challenged the issuance of that permit, arguing that, among other things, EPD issued the permit in violation of a water quality standard, Ga. Comp. R. & Regs., r. 391-3-6-.03 (2) (b) (ii) (the “antidegradation rule”), because it failed to determine whether any resulting degradation of water quality in the State waters surrounding the proposed LAS was necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area. An administrative law judge rejected Barrow’s argument, finding that the rule required an antidegradation analysis only for point source discharges of pollutants and the LAS at issue was a nonpoint source discharge. The superior court affirmed the administrative ruling. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the plain language of the antidegradation rule required EPD to perform the antidegradation analysis for nonpoint source discharges, and that EPD’s internal guidelines to the contrary did not warrant deference. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari review in this matter to consider what level of deference courts should afford EPD's interpretation of the antidegradation rule, and whether that regulation required an antidegradation analysis for nonpint source discharges. The Court concluded the Court of Appeals was correct that the antidegradation rule was unambiguous: the text and legal context of the regulation showed that an antidegradation analysis was required only for point sources, not nonpoint sources. Therefore, the Court reversed. View "City of Guyton v. Barrow" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the State has waived sovereign immunity under the Georgia Torts Claims Act (“GTCA”), for Thomas McConnell’s tort action; and, (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that McConnell’s complaint failed to state a claim. In September 2012, the Georgia Department of Labor created a spreadsheet containing the name, social security number, home telephone number, email address, and age of 4,757 individuals over the age of 55 in Cherokee, Cobb, and Fulton counties who had applied for unemployment benefits or other services administered by the Department, including McConnell. Almost a year later, a Department employee inadvertently sent an email with the spreadsheet attached to approximately 1,000 recipients without the permission of the individuals whose information was included in the spreadsheet. 2014, McConnell filed a complaint against the Department on behalf of himself and a proposed class of all individuals whose information was contained in the spreadsheet, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts. The complaint alleged that, as a result of the Department’s negligent disclosure of McConnell’s and the other proposed class members’ personal information, they were required to place freezes and alerts with credit reporting agencies, close or modify financial accounts, and closely review and monitor their credit reports and accounts for unauthorized activity. The complaint further alleged that McConnell and others whose information had been disclosed incurred out-of-pocket costs related to credit monitoring and identity protection services and suffered adverse impacts to their credit scores related to the closure of credit accounts. The Department moved to dismiss, ruling that sovereign immunity barred the lawsuit because the GTCA did not waive the State’s immunity for the type of “loss” that McConnell alleged. McConnell appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, pretermitting a decision on sovereign immunity and addressing only the trial court’s ruling that each count of the complaint failed to state a claim. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and affirmed. View "Georgia Department of Labor v. McConnell" on Justia Law

Gregory Haney and Ledarius Jackson appealed the denial of their respective motions for new trial after a jury found them guilty of malice murder, felony murder, and armed robbery in connection with the death of Gregory Smith. In Haney’s case, he argued the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient for the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to each of the charged offenses and that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain opinion and identification testimony offered by two of the State’s witnesses. In Jackson’s case, he also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him by the State as to each count of the indictment. Additionally, he argued his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an objection, pursuant to Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968), to certain statements made by State witnesses who recounted statements made by Haney implicating Jackson in the crime and for failing to object to the introduction of an audio tape of a conversation between Jackson and his girlfriend. Finding no merit in any of these enumerations, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed both defendants’ convictions. View "Haney v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Stevie Williamson appealed his convictions for malice murder, burglary, and other charges stemming from the July 2006 shooting death of George Rutten at Rutten’s home. On appeal, Williams: (1) challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to burglary and a felony murder count predicated on burglary; and (2) argued the trial court erred when it did not grant his motion to suppress certain custodial statements and evidence flowing therefrom. Williamson contended the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the jury could consider any prior consistent statements by witnesses as “substantive evidence” and it should have considered any statement made by the defendant “with great care and caution.” Williamson moved the Georgia Supreme Court to remand the case back to the trial court so that he could raise possible claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After review of the trial court record, and upon consideration of Williamson’s claims on appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to find that Williamson committed the crimes of which he was convicted, the trial court did not err in finding that his custodial statements were admissible, and none of the cited jury instructions were reversible error. Furthermore, the Court concluded Williamson was barred from raising in his direct appeal any claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because he did not raise them at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, the Court denied the motion to remand, and affirmed Williamson’s convictions. View "Williamson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Demarcio Williams appealed his convictions for murder and attempted armed robbery in connection with the 2010 shooting death of James Akridge. Williams argued: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the trial court erred in having improper communication with a juror; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict; and (4) the prosecutor improperly commented on his silence. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Williams’ convictions. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Jones was convicted of two counts of malice murder in connection with the shooting deaths of Forrest Ison and Alice Stevens. On appeal, he challenged the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of certain testimony, contended the trial court erred when it did not declare a mistrial, and claimed his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Jones’ convictions. View "Jones v. Georgia" on Justia Law