Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Traevis Griggs appealed his felony murder conviction for the April 2015 shooting death of Jewvyn Glover. Griggs argued on appeal that the trial court erred by convicting him of felony murder instead of voluntary manslaughter when the jury found him guilty of both. Because under Georgia's precedent the trial court did not err by entering a conviction and sentence on the felony murder count, and because the arguments Griggs made for deviation from that precedent were unpersuasive, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Griggs v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Pro se appellants Jack and Lynette Beavers (Appellants) appeal from the dismissal of their petition for habeas relief. Appellants are the parents of three minor children. On May 12, 2017, the children were taken from the Appellants’ custody by the Paulding County Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) and law enforcement officers and placed in temporary foster care. Three days later, on May 15, 2017, DFCS filed a complaint in juvenile court seeking a dependency removal order (DRO). Appellants sought to regain custody of their children following the entry of the Adjudication and Disposition order, which largely found appellants failed to adequately address past issues of family violence and required them to participate in a family violence assessment and training program. Appellants filed a habeas petition in an attempt to regain custody. DFCS moved to dismiss the habeas petition, arguing that the question of the children’s dependency and custody was being decided in ongoing juvenile court proceedings, that the juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction to hear dependency cases, and that habeas corpus was not an available remedy in this case. DFCS further argued that the proper method for the Appellants to challenge DFCS’s custody of the children was by appealing the juvenile court’s orders in the dependency case, which the Appellants have done. DFCS also argued that the Appellants’ claims were barred by res judicata. The habeas court dismissed the petition and alternately denied it, finding that it was improper because the dependency issues should be and were tried in juvenile court, a dispositive order had already been entered in the juvenile court proceedings, and that even if the habeas court were to assume jurisdiction over the habeas petition, petitioners were not entitled to any of the relief requested. Finding no error in that judgment, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Beavers v. Provost" on Justia Law

Appellant Denirio Cunningham was tried and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with crimes he committed against David Rucker, Ashley Gay, and their two minor children. Cunningham appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred by improperly admitting evidence pursuant to OCGA 24-4- 404 (b), and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed Cunningham’s convictions and sentences for false imprisonment and the related weapons charges because of insufficient evidence, but affirmed his remaining convictions and sentences. View "Cunningham v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Zjuantavious Marquis Jackson appealed his convictions for malice murder and other charges related to the shooting death of Detavious Milner at an April 2015 house party in Floyd County, Georgia. He argued on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective when he argued against bifurcating a charge that Appellant possessed a firearm as a convicted felon. Appellant also argued that his post-trial discovery of material evidence requires that he be granted a new trial. The Supreme Court found appellant had not overcome the presumption that trial counsel’s decision to withdraw Appellant’s request for bifurcation was part of an objectively reasonable trial strategy, and Appellant had not satisfied the standard for obtaining a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. View "Jackson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In October 2014, a jury found Wright Greyhound Phoenix guilty of malice murder, aggravated assault, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, and obstruction of an officer, all in connection with the stabbing death of Angela Whitten. Phoenix’s amended motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his pre-trial motion for continuance. The Georgia Supreme Court was unpersuaded, and affirmed. View "Phoenix v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted Markell Rawles' application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. The issue presented was whether the habeas court erred in finding that Rawles waived his right to file the petition in exchange for a reduced sentence. Rawles was convicted on six counts each of aggravated assault, kidnapping, false imprisonment and weapons possession in the commission of a crime. On appeal of his sentence, new counsel amended his motion for a new trial, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the kidnapping charge, that there were multiple errors in the trial court's instructing the jury, and that there were irregularities in the verdict form. The State conceded that these issues had arguable merit; as a result, Rawles and the State discussed Rawles waiving his right to appeal for resentencing to a lesser sentence. The Supreme Court found, after review of the record, that the State did not meet its burden of showing Rawles' waiver, and therefore reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Rawles v. Holt" on Justia Law

Christopher Willis was tried by jury and convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Robert Lee Murry, Jr. Willis appealed, arguing: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted certain testimony from a crime scene investigator; and (3) the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that a murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Willis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Alejandro Rivera was tried and convicted of malice murder and related offenses in connection with the February 2008 shooting death of Mark Martin. Rivera appealed, alleging the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court committed reversible error. Finding no such errors, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rivera v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2006, Terrence Johnson was tried jury and convicted of armed robbery, aggravated assault with intent to rob, and unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Johnson appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions, but it found that the trial judge failed to exercise his sentencing discretion and remanded the case for resentencing. Johnson was sentenced to concurrent terms of 20 years (13 years of imprisonment, followed by seven years on probation) for armed robbery and aggravated assault with intent to rob, and a consecutive term of five years on probation for unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. In 2011, Johnson sought habeas relief, alleging that the aggravated assault with intent to rob merged with the armed robbery of which he was convicted, and he should not have been separately convicted of the aggravated assault. The habeas court denied his petition, and Johnson appealed. The State conceded that the aggravated assault and armed robbery merged; the Georgia Supreme Court agreed and reversed the denial of the writ of habeas corpus. The case was remanded for the habeas court to issue a writ setting aside the separate conviction and sentence for aggravated assault. View "Johnson v. Williams" on Justia Law

Jeneral Walter appealed his convictions for felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Both convictions stemmed from the 2010 shooting death of T’Shanerka Smith. Walter argued the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants, and that the trial court erred by instructing the jury it could consider a witness' "level of certainty" in assessing the reliability of the witness' identification, and by failing to instruct the jury that accomplice testimony had to be corroborated. The Georgia Supreme Court determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever, because Walter did not show a clear prejudice and denial of due process resulting from the joint trial. The Court also determined Walter did not show plain error in the jury instructions, since any error in the level-of-certainty instruction did not likely affect the outcome, and no accomplice-corroboration instruction was required on this record. View "Walter v. Georgia" on Justia Law