Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Harvey Walker was convicted by jury of murder and related crimes in connection with the stabbing death of his ex-girlfriend, Kateria Benton. On appeal, he argued the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and that the trial court erred in allowing improper testimony and evidence of prior bad acts to be admitted. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Walker v.Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2013, the State of Georgia indicted Blane Nordahl on three counts of burglary, four counts of first-degree burglary, and a single count of criminal attempt to commit burglary. The State notified Nordahl that it intended to seek recidivist punishment pursuant to OCGA 17-10-7 (a) and (c), based on his prior out-of-state and federal felony convictions. Nordahl entered a non-negotiated guilty plea to the Georgia charges in 2017, but he challenged the State’s request for recidivist punishment, arguing, inter alia, that his federal conviction for conspiracy to transport stolen goods in interstate commerce was not a crime that would be a felony if committed in Georgia. The trial court rejected Nordahl’s argument and sentenced him as a recidivist. The Georgia Supreme Court granted review in this case to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying a “conduct” approach when analyzing whether a prior out-of-state or federal conviction is for a crime that would be a felony if committed in Georgia and would, therefore, support enhanced punishment under OCGA 17-10-7 (a) and (c). The Court determined the Court of Appeals’ “conduct” approach violated the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and had to be disapproved. Nevertheless, after applying the “elements-only” or “modified categorical” approach to analyzing the prior federal conviction used to support the recidivist sentence at issue in this appeal, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment under the right-for-any-reason doctrine. View "Nordahl v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2013, a small business jet crashed into a Georgia Power Company transmission pole on Milliken & Company’s property near the Thomson-McDuffie Regional Airport in Thomson, Georgia. The two pilots were injured and the five passengers died. In the wake of the crash, the pilots and the families of the deceased passengers filed a total of seven lawsuits against multiple defendants, including Georgia Power and Milliken. The complaints in those seven suits alleged that a transmission pole located on Milliken’s property was negligently erected and maintained within the airport’s protected airspace. The record evidence showed Georgia Power constructed the transmission pole on Milliken’s property for the purpose of providing electricity to Milliken’s manufacturing-plant expansion, and that the pole was constructed pursuant to a 1989 Easement between Georgia Power and Milliken. In each of the seven suits, Milliken filed identical cross-claims against Georgia Power, alleging that Georgia Power was contractually obligated to indemnify Milliken “for all sums that Plaintiffs may recover from Milliken” under Paragraph 12 of the Easement. Georgia Power moved for summary judgment on the crossclaims, which were granted. The trial court reasoned Paragraph 12 of the Easement operated as a covenant not to sue, rather than as an indemnity agreement, because it “nowhere contains the word ‘indemnity’” and “it is not so comprehensive regarding protection from liability.” The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment to six cases. Rather than adopt the trial court’s reasoning, the appellate court held that the provision was an indemnity agreement and affirmed the trial court by applying Georgia’s anti-indemnity statute, OCGA 13-8-2 (b), to determine that Paragraph 12 of the Easement was “void as against public policy,” a theory argued before the trial court but argued or briefed before the Court of Appeals. The Georgia Supreme Court determined the Court of Appeals erred in its construction and application of OCGA 13-8-2(b), vacated the judgment and remanded for the lower court to consider whether, in the first instance, the trial court’s rationale for granting Georgia Power’s motions for summary judgment and any other arguments properly before the Court of Appeals. View "Milliken & Co. v. Georgia Power Co." on Justia Law

Gregory Adams was tried by jury and found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was less safe to drive, failure to maintain lane, and following too closely. He appealed, claiming the trial court erred in admitting evidence regarding a stipulation in an administrative license suspension hearing pursuant to OCGA 40-5-67.1 and evidence of a 2011 arrest for DUI. The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. While the Georgia Supreme Court did not agree with all that was stated in the Court of Appeals’ opinion, it nevertheless concluded Adams affirmatively waived the first claim and failed to demonstrate error with respect to the second claim. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Adams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Phillip Bailey appealed the denial of his motion for leave to pursue an out-of-time appeal. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Bailey pleaded guilty in 2007 to the murder of Jess Sharp and an aggravated assault upon Lamar Sharp, for which Bailey was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murder and a concurrent term of imprisonment for 20 years for the aggravated assault. He did not bring a timely appeal from the judgment of conviction entered upon his plea. More than eleven years later, Bailey filed a motion for leave to pursue an out-of-time appeal. In his motion, Bailey alleged, among other things, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in connection with his plea and that his plea was involuntary. Bailey did not allege, however, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in connection with his failure to bring a timely appeal. Nor did he allege that his failure to bring a timely appeal was attributable to any other error of constitutional magnitude. The trial court denied his motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded after review of the trial record, that the trial court was right to deny the motion. View "Bailey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Robert Moss appealed his conviction for murder in connection with the 2010 shooting death of Rosa Mae Brown. Moss challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction and contended that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for change of venue. Finding no such abuse, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Moss v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Lamaris Grier was convicted by jury for two murders and related crimes. He appealed, contending: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to improper testimony and closing argument; and (3) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Grier v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jehaziel Carter was convicted of malice murder, financial-transaction card fraud, and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Eric Chepkuto. On appeal, Carter argued the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, and in particular, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for financial-transaction card fraud. The trial court record revealed Chepkuto was found dead in the apartment he shared with his wife rom a gunshot to the face. A review of Chepkuto’s cell phone and bank records led police to Carter, who was unemployed and living with his cousin at the time. Chepkuto’s work phone was found behind the couch where Carter slept. Carter’s backpack contained paperwork and other items belonging to Carter, as well as ammunition and a gun that was later determined to have fired the bullet that killed Chepkuto. Bank records and other evidence show five attempts to access money from an ATM using Carter's debit card were made; a purchase was made for an item costing close to $4,000; the receipt listed Carter's e-mail address, and specified the item was to be delivered to the address of the mother of Carter's child. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed on the fraud count, finding the evidence was legally sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than Carter’s guilt and to authorize a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Carter was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted, other than the financial-transaction card fraud. But because the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts on the other counts, the Court affirmed Carter’s remaining convictions. View "Carter v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Tyrone Davis challenged his convictions for felony murder and a firearm offense in connection with the shooting death of Keith Moses. He contended the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress his custodial statement to the police; the trial court erred in denying his motion to prevent a document reflecting a co-defendant’s sentence from going out with the jury during deliberations; and he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Davis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Cameron Carter was convicted by jury of malice murder of Ashey Garry and other offenses. Carter claims on appeal that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, Carter argued that, although his trial counsel raised objections to the admission of what he characterized as three juvenile court disposition orders, she “failed to object as to the specific form and content of the dispositions,” thereby allowing the jury improper access to the details of Carter’s sentencing. Carter contended his counsel was deficient because the sentencing information in the three exhibits was not admissible, and he was prejudiced because, as to Exhibit 64, the disposition order showed that the juvenile court determined that he should be detained “to protect the person or property of other[s] or the child,” and Exhibits 68 and 70 showed that he was sentenced to serve significant time on probation and had been ordered to pay numerous fines. The Georgia Supreme Court found that Carter could not carry his burden of showing "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. . . . Although circumstantial, the evidence of Carter’s guilt was strong." Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Carter v. Georgia" on Justia Law