Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Sylvester Henderson appealed pro se appeal a trial court’s order denying his “Objection to Order Denying Defendants Motion for Disclosure Grand Jury Testimony and Evidence.” The issue this case raised for the Georgia Supreme Court’s review centered on the scope of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in light of the changes imposed by OCGA 15-3-3.1 on appeals filed after January 1, 2017. The Supreme Court concluded it had subject matter jurisdiction because this appeal fell within Ga. Const. Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8) as a case “in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed,” rather than a separate civil “petition in the nature of mandamus” as posited in Coles v. Georgia, 477 SE2d 897(1996). Consequently, the Court retained jurisdiction of this appeal, overruled “Coles,” and dismissed the appeal because the remedy Henderson sought here was not legally cognizable. View "Henderson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Tommy Hood was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Morrell Dorsey and the aggravated assault of Alkeyna Bilal. Appellant contended on appeal that: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove him guilty of felony murder; (2) the trial court committed plain error in failing to give, and his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to request, certain jury instructions; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing him. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hood v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Johnathan Anthony, Antonio Pass, and Jekari Strozier were tried by jury and convicted of murder and criminal gang activity in connection with the beating and death of Joshua Chellew. They appealed, each raising several claims of error. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error as to their convictions for murder. The Court concluded, however, that the convictions for criminal gang activity had to be set aside: the Supreme Court found that based on the facts presented in this case, the offenses of unlawful participation in criminal gang activity through the commission of an aggravated assault and unlawful participation in criminal gang activity through the commission of an aggravated battery merged with the offense of unlawful participation in criminal gang activity through the commission of a simple battery, which formed the basis for, and properly was merged into, the felony murder of which the appellants were convicted and sentenced. Accordingly, their separate convictions for criminal gang activity involving aggravated assault and aggravated battery had to be vacated. View "Anthony v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Orlando Ramirez appealed his convictions for malice murder, attempted murder, and other crimes associated with a shooting in which Bruno Rodriguez was killed and Daniel Maldonado-Flores was injured. Ramirez argued that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of other incidents of criminal activity at the bar where the shooting took place. The Georgia Supreme Court disagreed, and therefore affirmed his convictions. View "Ramirez v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Yvette Taylor was convicted by jury for the felony murder of Theodore Crew. Taylor served as the live-in caretaker of Crew. Crew’s nude body was found on the bathroom floor; he had suffered 21 blunt force and 17 sharp force injuries on his head, neck, arms, chest, and hands. The medical examiner ruled Crew’s death a homicide. Despite the signs of violent infliction of injury, there was less blood throughout the home than would be expected from Crew’s injuries. Along with other factors, this indicated that the apartment had been bleached and cleaned Taylor appealed, contending the trial court made a number of evidentiary errors, including the introduction of improper character evidence and an allegedly involuntary confession. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed her conviction. View "Taylor v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jonathan Nations was convicted of murder and other offenses arising out of the killing of Bobby Swint and the wounding and armed robbery of Kenyatta Moss. His amended motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed, asserting as his sole enumeration of error the admission of his prior armed robbery conviction. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Nations' convictions. View "Nations v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Reno Byron was found guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Virgil White. He claimed on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Court found no merit to either of those claims and affirmed Bryon's convictions. View "Byron v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Steven Eller was found guilty of malice murder and other crimes, and his sister, Appellant Tammy Murphy, was found guilty of felony murder and other crimes, all in connection with the March 2013 shooting death of Murphy’s boyfriend, Danny Gravley. Appellants appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to sustain Murphy’s felony murder and aggravated assault convictions, that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the alternate jurors to remain in the jury room during deliberations, and that Appellants’ trial counsel each rendered ineffective assistance for several reasons. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Eller v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant David Gallemore, III and appellee Wanda White divorced in 2009. Later, the parties were involved in a dispute over the amount of child support Gallemore was required to pay and whether he was in contempt for failing to pay what had been ordered. The Georgia Supreme Court granted Gallemore’s application for discretionary appeal to examine whether the trial court erred by holding Gallemore in contempt for failing to pay child support and by awarding attorney fees to White. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed contempt order, vacated the order awarding attorney fees, and remanded the case for further proceedings on that issue. View "Gallemore v. White" on Justia Law

In consolidated actions, brothers-appellants Alex and David Peterson claimed, among other things, that their mother, appellee Mary Peterson, and their brother, appellee Calhoun Peterson, had breached their duties as executors of the will of Mary’s husband, Charles Hugh Peterson, and as trustees of a bypass trust created by that will. This appeal stemmed from the superior court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment filed by Mary. Of the many allegations of the complaints, the superior court specifically addressed two of them: one was Alex’s and David’s allegation that Mary and Calhoun, as trustees, had not properly considered the testator’s stated intention “to provide for the proper support and education of my descendants taking into account and consideration any other means of support they or any of them may have to the knowledge of the Trustees.” With regard to this issue, the superior court ruled against Alex and David for two reasons: (1) because Item 21 of the will provided that a decision of the majority of the trustees would be controlling only so long as Mary was one of the majority, Alex and David would be entitled to income under the bypass trust only if Mary approved it; and (2) because of the requirement that Mary be a part of the majority of executors or trustees for one of their decisions to control, because of the benefits granted to Mary under the trusts, and because of her power to appoint trust property, the primary purpose of the trusts was to support Mary, and there was thus “no requirement that income be provided to either [Alex or David].” The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that based on the facts of record, these conclusions did not warrant the grant of summary judgment to Mary. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this matter for further proceedings. View "Peterson v. Peterson" on Justia Law