Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellee Quantavious Harris was convicted of felony murder and related offenses in connection with the 2009 shooting death of taxicab driver Stephen Anim. Harris timely filed a motion for new trial claiming, among other things, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress text messages obtained from Harris’ cell phone by law enforcement without a warrant. After a hearing, the trial court agreed with Harris and granted the motion. The State appealed, contending that the trial court’s conclusion regarding “Strickland” prejudice was erroneous. The Supreme Court agreed with the State, after review of the trial court record, and therefore reversed the trial court’s grant of a new trial. View "Georgia v. Harris" on Justia Law

In response to Wife’s request for an award of attorney fees and costs, the trial court entered an order finding Husband’s conduct had unnecessarily expanded the litigation and awarded Wife fees and expenses. The decree awarded primary physical custody of the child to Wife, and permitted Wife to relocate to Arizona where she and the child resided prior to the marriage. To address problems that immediately arose concerning child custody and the exchange of the child between Arizona and Georgia, the trial court entered an amended final judgment and decree that changed the terms of the original child custody award with respect to Husband’s visitation and other details. On appeal, Husband challenged the award of attorney fees to Wife, and further asserted that even if attorney fees were properly awarded, the trial court erred in failing to offset from the final attorney fees award the amounts he had previously paid as temporary support and attorney fees. Due to the terms of the parties’ prenuptial agreement, the Supreme Court agreed with Husband that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees: “[t]he fact remains, however, that pursuant to Georgia law, when they are awarded, attorney fees under OCGA § 19-6-2 are awarded ‘as an intrinsic part of temporary alimony.’” View "Vakharwala v. Vakharwala" on Justia Law

Willie Jones was convicted by jury of felony murder for the death of his four-year-old daughter, Ty’Asia Phillips. He appealed on the sole ground that he was convicted by general verdict on a count of felony murder that contained two predicates, one of which, he claimed, there was insufficient evidence to support. Because the Supreme Court found there was sufficient evidence to convict Jones of felony murder based on one of the two charged predicates for felony murder, and that this was enough to sustain his conviction, the court affirmed. View "Jones v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Freedell Benton was convicted by jury of malice murder, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and various other offenses in connection with the shooting death of Drexel Berry. On appeal, Benton contended: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by allowing the jurors to submit questions to be posed to witnesses; (3) the trial court erred when it allowed into evidence certain autopsy photographs; and (4) that his trial counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing. The Court found that the portion of the sentence purporting to merge the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon count into malice murder was made in error. View "Benton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Wayne Welbon appealed his conviction for the murder of Taurean Reeves. Welbon argued on appeal: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to strike for cause a certain prospective juror; and (2) the trial court erred by allowing the State to present testimony regarding statements he allegedly made to the police, contending any such statements were given involuntarily. Because the trial court applied the wrong legal standard by erroneously placing the burden on Welbon to show that his statements were involuntary, and because the Supreme Court could not say, after review, that there was no evidence before the trial court that would authorize the grant of a motion to suppress. The Court vacated the trial court’s order denying Welbon’s motion for new trial and remanded this case to the trial court for consideration of Welbon’s claim of involuntariness under the proper standard. View "Welbon v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Daughter Janay Milbourne (“Janay”) filed a caveat asserting that Edison Milbourne’s January 2013 Will was invalid because it had been procured by undue influence by sister and guardian Vashti Milbourne (“Vashti”); because it had been revoked by Edison; because it had been improperly executed; and because Edison lacked testamentary capacity to make the will in the first place. The Probate Court rejected all of these contentions on summary judgment motions except the first; the court found that a question of fact remained on the issue of undue influence. Vashti disagreed with that decision, and the Supreme Court granted her application for an interlocutory appeal. Janay, meanwhile, filed a cross appeal of the probate court’s grant of summary judgment to Vashti on the issue of revocation. Because the probate court was correct that an issue of fact remains on undue influence, and in its conclusion that Edison did not revoke his January 2013 will, the Supreme Court affirmed both judgments. View "Milbourne v. Milbourne" on Justia Law

After the Merle and Lesia Long and their business Water Park Properties, LLC dismissed their most recent lawsuit against the City of Helen with prejudice, the trial court awarded more than $17,000 to the City for attorney fees and litigation expenses pursuant to OCGA 9-15-14. The Longs and Water Park appealed, contending that the award of fees and expenses was improper because those fees and expenses actually were borne by the City’s insurer, not the City itself. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the award. View "Long v. City of Helen" on Justia Law

Appellant Damien Reddick was convicted of murder in connection with the shooting death of Cory Johnson. The trial court denied his amended motion for new trial, and he appealed. His sole enumeration of error was that the trial court erred in refusing his written request to charge on a lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Reddick v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Under OCGA 17-10-6.2 (b), a defendant convicted of a sexual offense must receive a split sentence: one that includes a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment followed by an additional probated sentence of at least one year. This case presented the more complicated question of how the statute applies when a defendant was convicted of multiple sexual offenses: does the split-sentence requirement apply to each of the multiple sexual offenses of which a defendant is convicted or, as the State argued, only to the aggregate sentence? Considering the plain language of OCGA 17-10-6.2 (b) in the context of the “well-established” principle that each count receives a discrete sentence, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the statute required a split sentence on each sexual offense. Because the Court of Appeals correctly vacated those sentences that failed to meet this requirement, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Georgia v. Riggs" on Justia Law

“If the trial court has made express findings of fact, but not with sufficient detail to permit meaningful appellate review, an appellate court may remand for further findings.” Michael Williams was indicted for burglary and obstruction of justice by fleeing. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence. The trial court made almost no express findings of fact before denying the motion. Given the uncertainty in the trial court’s order regarding the basis for its ruling, the Georgia Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the Court of Appeals which upheld the trial court’s judgment, and remanded for the Court of Appeals to remand this case to the trial court for further clarification on the specific findings that formed the basis for its legal conclusions with regard to Williams’ motion to suppress. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law