Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Patrick O’Connor appealed the grant of summary judgment to Appellees Fulton County and its County Manager, Richard Anderson, on his claims for breach of contract, mandamus relief, and attorney fees. O’Connor was hired in 1996 as the CFO/Finance Director for Fulton County. O’Connor was an unclassified, at-will employee, and, though the Finance Director position was originally an “on-range position” (i.e., one that is on a pay scale), it was later changed to a set-rate position, which has a salary specifically approved by either the County Manager or the Fulton County Board of Commissioners (“the Board”). In October 2014, the Board appointed O’Connor as Interim County Manager. Just a few months later, however, O’Connor was removed from that position and given the option to resign as Finance Director or be fired; O’Connor refused to resign, and the Board terminated his employment. The trial court granted summary judgment to Appellees, concluding that the personnel regulations did not create an employment contract and that, even if they had, Personnel Regulation 300-4 (7) did not apply to O’Connor. The trial court also concluded that, because O’Connor could not prevail on his underlying breach-of-contract claim, he was not entitled to mandamus relief or attorney fees. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "O'Connor v. Fulton County" on Justia Law

James Anderson was found guilty of felony murder and other crimes arising out of the shooting death of Franklin Burch. Appellant argued the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial because during voir dire one of the jurors, identified by his initial “H.,” improperly concealed his connection to the case and his bias toward the victim. Appellant contended a defendant is entitled to a new trial based on juror misconduct if the defendant is able to demonstrate that: “(1) the juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire and (2) a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Appellant also argued he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because in his opinion, trial counsel: (1) failed to ask questions on voir dire that would have uncovered the reasons why juror H. was not qualified to sit on the jury, including the extent of his relationships with persons involved with the case, his personal bias, and his personal handling and viewing of evidence; and (2) failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the defense that the rifle fired accidentally as a result of a struggle between appellant and the victim, and in failing to present expert testimony that would have supported that defense. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Anderson’s conviction. View "Anderson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jermaine Revere was convicted by jury of murder and various other offenses in connection with the stabbing death of Angelo Patterson. In his sole enumeration on appeal, Revere argued he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Revere contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (a) object or request a mistrial after three of the State’s witnesses improperly placed Patterson’s character in issue, and (b) introduce evidence of Patterson’s prior felony convictions to rebut or impeach the State’s improper character evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. View "Revere v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Willie Dublin appealed his convictions for felony murder and other crimes stemming from the fatal shooting of Terry Slack during an attempted robbery. He argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on his counsel’s failure to object to hearsay and what he contends was an improper comment on his pre-trial silence, as well as other enumerations of error related to the admission of additional hearsay and other acts evidence. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court conclude the alleged hearsay was admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule. Dublin did not shown that trial counsel’s failure to object to a detective’s comment on his silence prejudiced his defense. Furthermore, the Court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial after a witness alluded to some prior bad acts. The Court vacated the judgment in part, however, as the trial court erred by merging the count of aggravated assault with intent to rob into the offense of felony murder. The matter was remanded for resentencing. View "Dublin v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Rhonda Bennett (f/k/a Donley) filed an amended motion for new trial following a habeas court order discharging the payment of restitution and any arrearage for back child support by the purported biological father of Bennett’s minor child. Concluding that she was a non-party to the underlying action and therefore lacked standing to challenge its order, the court dismissed Bennett’s motion. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, finding the habeas court erred in concluding that Bennett lacked standing. View "Bennett v. Etheridge" on Justia Law

Appellant Thomas Houston appealed after a trial court denied his motion for an out-of-time appeal of his 2008 convictions by guilty pleas to two murders and numerous other crimes in connection with a series of home invasions targeting Hispanic victims in Columbus. Pretermitting whether Houston showed a proper excuse for not filing a timely appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court found the record showed that he was not entitled to an out-of-time appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed denial of appellant’s motion. View "Houston v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The parties were divorced in Connecticut in 2010. At that time, appellant Husband’s child support obligation was $279 per week for the parties’ two minor children. A Connecticut court modified the support order to facilitate appellee Wife’s move to Georgia with the children, reducing the obligation to $100 per week. In 2016, Wife filed an action in Georgia to domesticate and modify the parties’ Connecticut divorce decree and the modified order. The complaint was served on Husband personally while he was in Coweta County visiting the children. Husband moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the Georgia trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the Connecticut child support order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), because the requirements of OCGA § 19-11-172 (a)2 had not been met. Wife argued that jurisdiction was proper under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law (UEFJL), to both enforce and modify the Connecticut child support order. The trial court ultimately denied Husband’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that it had jurisdiction to modify the Connecticut child support order; however, it granted Husband’s request for a certificate of immediate review. The Georgia Supreme Court granted Husband’s application for interlocutory review, and, having considered the record, the parties’ arguments, and the relevant legal authorities, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment. The Georgia trial court did not have jurisdiction; Wife had to modify the child support order in Connecticut, and her invocation of the UEFJL did not change that result. View "Ross v. Ross" on Justia Law

A jury acquitted Jeremy Scott of malice murder in the shooting death of Dexter Holliday, but found him guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm in commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. His amended motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed, arguing the trial court erred in its charge to the jury. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, however, vacated the sentence Scott received and remanded to the trial court for resentencing. View "Scott v. Georgia" on Justia Law

This case involves the revocation of a will due to after-born children of the testator. The probate court determined the will did not contemplate the birth of future children, and therefore their birth revoked the will. The named beneficiary appeals. Finding no reversible error in that decision, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hobbs v. Winfield" on Justia Law

Tyshawn Roscoe was convicted by jury of malice murder and various other offenses in connection with the shooting death of John Douglas. On appeal, Roscoe argued, among other things, that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude certain evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Roscoe v. Georgia" on Justia Law