Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michael Stallworth was convicted by jury of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He appealed, arguing, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Stallworth v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Georgia Supreme Court concerned the constitutionality of the appointment process created by House Bill 597 (HB 597), a DeKalb County local law that delegated to private entities the power to appoint certain members of the DeKalb County Board of Ethics. The trial court found the appointment process created by HB 597 was unconstitutional and granted the writ of quo warranto as to four challenged Board members. The Board appealed this ruling, and the Supreme Court found the the trial court correctly granted the writ of quo warranto as to the four challenged Board members appointed by private entities, as these appointments were unconstitutional. View "Delay v. Sutton" on Justia Law

Hubert Coates was convicted of four counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced on each count. Coates appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentences, concluding that OCGA 16-11-131 (b) (2014)2 permitted a defendant to be separately convicted and sentenced for each of the multiple firearms in his possession. The issue this case presented for the Georgia Supreme Court's review was a question of whether a single course of conduct could result in multiple convictions and sentences under the same statute, the doctrine of substantive double jeopardy was implicated, and the “unit of prosecution,” or the precise act criminalized by the statute, had to be identified. "Reading the statute in a natural and ordinary way, it is clear that the gravamen of the offense is the general receipt, possession, or transportation of firearms by convicted felons, rather than the specific quantity of firearms received, possessed, or transported." Based on this analysis, the Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals erred. Accordingly, the decision was reversed, Coates’ convictions and sentences for the four counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon vacated, and the case remanded for the trial court to convict and resentence Coates on only one of those counts. View "Coates v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Dexter Parks was tried by jury and found guilty of felony-murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and participation in criminal gang activity. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in failing to exclude expert testimony over his objection, and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Parks’ convictions. View "Parks v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Corey Jones was convicted of malice murder and two firearm offenses in connection with the 2014 shooting death of Tywanna Boyd. On appeal, he contended only that the evidence presented at his trial was legally insufficient to support his convictions. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the convictions, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jones v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Joshua Starks appealed after he was convicted of felony murder and other charges stemming from 2013 the shooting death of Stenneth Charles during a drug deal. Starks argued he was entitled to a new trial because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to: (1) certain testimony as being an improper prior consistent statement; and (2) portions of the State’s closing argument. Assuming without deciding that trial counsel’s performance was deficient in both respects, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded Starks did not shown any prejudice, and affirmed his convictions. View "Starks v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Brawny McCullough was found guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting deaths of his father, Donald Eugene McCullough (“Gene”), and his great-aunt, Peggy Molden. The State sought the death penalty, but the jury decided that Appellant should instead be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Appellant argued on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by denying his request to continue the trial to accommodate a scheduling conflict that one of his lawyers had, even though Appellant had already been granted one lengthy continuance and was represented at trial by three other competent capital defenders. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions and affirmed the convictions, but vacated the trial court’s judgment in part to correct a sentencing error. View "McCullough v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Orlando Hawkins was convicted by jury of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the 2013 shooting death of Morie Brooks. On appeal, Hawkins argued the trial court erred in instructing the jury, and in denying his motion in liminie to exclude from trial certain Facebook posts. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hawkins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Michelle Hall, who was represented by counsel in her first appeal, sought to pursue a second direct appeal, which was not authorized by Georgia law, leaving the Georgia Supreme Court without jurisdiction to consider on the merits. Hall was convicted of malice murder and family violence aggravated assault in 2009. Her convictions were affirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court in her first direct appeal. She applied for habeas relief, which was ultimately denied. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the denial of habeas relief, and remanded to Georgia federal district court with instruction to remand to state court for a new direct appeal. The federal district court ruling served as the basis for Hall’s appeal before the Georgia Supreme Court. While the Georgia Supreme Court found itself in “no position to dictate the parameters of relief granted by the Eleventh Circuit, the relief granted by the Eleventh Circuit in this case is not available. In Georgia, the normal remedy for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in a situation where the defendant has not suffered a complete denial of counsel in his or her first direct appeal is a new trial, not just a new appeal.” Although the Eleventh Circuit's holding that Hall is entitled to habeas relief due to ineffective assistance of her appellate counsel is res judicata on the State, the State lacks the legal authority to provide the specific relief the Eleventh Circuit ordered. View "Hall v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Quinntavish Kennedy appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes related to the 2012 shooting death of Isiah Archible. At trial, the State introduced other acts evidence under OCGA 24-4-404 (b), and Kennedy’s sole argument on appeal was that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument referencing that evidence, which Kennedy interpreted as an impermissible argument that he had a propensity for committing crimes. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, finding trial counsel was not deficient because a reasonable attorney could have interpreted the prosecutor’s statements merely as arguing that the evidence established Kennedy’s intent to commit the charged crimes. View "Kennedy v. Georgia" on Justia Law