Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Roy McKinney was convicted of the malice murder of his wife, Shaquilla Weatherspoon, and cruelty to children in the third degree for beating Weatherspoon in the presence of their six-year-old daughter. His only contention on appeal was that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his murder conviction. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McKinney v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In January 2015, Janice Eversole filed a divorce action against Jay Eversole seeking, among other things, an award of alimony, child custody, and child support. Wife alleged Husband had left the marital home in Georgia less than six months prior to the filing of the complaint and was living at a stated address in South Carolina. With respect to personal jurisdiction over Husband for the award of alimony and child support, Wife alleged Husband was subject to the jurisdiction of the court pursuant to the Georgia Long Arm Statute (OCGA 9-10-91 (5)). When Wife was unable to perfect personal service on Husband, the trial court granted her motion for service by publication. Husband failed to file a timely answer, and a hearing in the matter was conducted at which Husband failed to appear. After the hearing but before the trial court entered an order granting the divorce and other relief sought by Wife, Husband filed a late answer in which he admitted jurisdiction as pleaded in the complaint and admitted the marriage was irretrievably broken. He raised no objection to sufficiency of service. Husband denied other allegations of the complaint and sought custody of the parties’ minor child, along with an award of child support, and sought alimony from Wife. Nevertheless, the trial court entered the final judgment and decree of divorce which it dated nunc pro tunc to July 13, 2015, the date the hearing was conducted. In the order, the trial court awarded child custody to Wife, and also awarded, among other things, child support, alimony, and attorney fees and costs. Husband then filed a motion to set aside the judgment on two grounds: (1) that although he was served by publication he never received personal service or service by mail, and (2) that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because he was a resident of South Carolina. The trial court granted Husband’s motion in part and set aside its award of alimony, child support, and attorney fees and costs because it found it lacked personal jurisdiction over Husband to make these awards. The trial court did not set aside the grant of divorce, the division of personal property located in Georgia, the award of real property located in Georgia, or the child custody award, since it concluded personal jurisdiction was not required for those decisions. Wife filed an application for discretionary appeal which the Georgia Supreme Court granted. The Supreme Court found final judgment in this case had not been executed or entered at the time Husband filed his responsive pleading, even though the judgment was later executed and back-dated. The trial court erred in granting, part, Husband’s motion to set aside because he was bound by his admission of jurisdiction and waiver of the defense of insufficiency of service. Because the Supreme Court reversed in part the order granting Husband’s motion to set aside the divorce judgment, Wife’s remaining enumerations of error were moot and need not be addressed. View "Eversole v. Eversole" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Appellant Gilberto Gomez shot and killed 13-year-old Steven Galindo during an armed robbery of Galindo and Galindo’s sister, Samaria Diaz. Gomez and his compatriot Sergio Reyes Alvear approached the victims while they were outside their apartment next to their truck. Gomez was armed with a shotgun and Alvear was armed with a baseball bat. Gomez and Alvear, whose faces were covered by bandanas, invoked the name of a street gang and demanded the keys to the vehicle. They also took money and jewelry from Diaz. When the key the men were given did not start the truck, Alvear began hitting the truck with the bat. Meanwhile, Galindo tried to run away and Gomez shot him at least two times in the back. A Clayton County grand jury indicted Gomez and Alvear on charges of malice murder, four counts of felony murder, two counts of armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, three counts of violating the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act (GSGTPA), two counts of hijacking a motor vehicle, criminal damage to property in the second degree, theft by receiving stolen property, and five counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Before trial, Gomez learned from plea counsel that Alvear would likely testify against him, and, at that point, Gomez entered a negotiated plea and pled guilty to malice murder, armed robbery (of Diaz), and a violation of the GSGTPA. The trial court sentenced Gomez to life in prison with the possibility of parole for malice murder, 15 years to serve consecutively for armed robbery, and 5 years to serve consecutively for violation of the GSGTPA. The remaining indicted charges were nolle prossed. On appeal, Gomez argued his plea should be allowed to be withdrawn because his plea counsel did not specifically advise him he would have to serve at least 42-45 years in prison before being eligible for parole. As such, Gomez contended his plea counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion. View "Gomez v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Brandon Harrington was convicted of the malice murder and armed robbery of Mamie Wright and related crimes. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred in admitting his custodial interviews and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for armed robbery. The Supreme Court agreed with the latter contention and reversed Appellant’s armed robbery conviction. The Court also identified a merger error made by the trial court in sentencing Appellant, and therefore vacated the judgment in part and remanded for Appellant to be sentenced for burglary. The Court affirmed in all other respects. View "Harrington v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Marcus Smiley appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder, aggravated battery, and first degree cruelty to children, all in connection with the death of three-month-old Mia Williams and injuries to seven-month-old Tyre Mears. Smiley challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him. The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented authorized the jury to find Smiley guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the crimes of which he was found guilty. However, the Court found that aggravated battery committed against Mia merged into the malice murder of Mia. Therefore, the conviction and sentence entered on the aggravated battery of Mia had to be vacated. View "Smiley v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Derrick Stanley appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes related to the stabbing death of Doris Murray. Appellant and Murray were formerly in a romantic relationship. At the time of Murray’s death, she and appellant were still active in each other’s lives. In 2008, appellant was helping Murray remove items from her home which had recently sustained damage from a fire. That morning, Murray’s children and other acquaintances were also scheduled to come to the house to provide assistance. A neighbor heard appellant and Murray “fussing” and saw appellant and Murray go into the house. That was the last time anyone saw Murray alive. The police caught up with appellant in his vehicle but he fled, leading authorities on a high-speed chase. When appellant was finally caught and arrested, police found a knife in his vehicle. Appellant made a statement to police alleging he and Murray had engaged in a struggle over a knife and that she stabbed him. The lead investigator testified that the blood splatter in the carport room confirmed there was some sort of a “mobile struggle” between appellant and the victim, meaning appellant and the victim moved about the room during the incident. Appellant eventually admitted he injured himself with the knife and confirmed he stabbed Murray. Murray had defensive wounds to her body, including a partially-severed thumb. Appellant challenged alleged errors at trial, but finding none, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s convictions. View "Stanley v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial regarding ninety separate counts of criminal activity, Tamario Wise appealed his convictions for murder and armed robbery, contending that the trial court made certain evidentiary errors and that the evidence was insufficient to support one count of armed robbery. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wise v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Kajul Harvey was convicted of malice murder, burglary and other crimes in connection with the death of her mother, Alena Marble. She appealed, arguing, amongst other things, the evidence of guilt was insufficient and her trial counsel was ineffective. After review, the Supreme Court found no harmful error and affirmed appellant’s convictions and sentences, except for the conviction and sentence for hindering the apprehension of a criminal, which the Court determined should have been vacated. View "Harvey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a trial court order determining that Father-appellant George Denney was the legal and biological father of minor child M. S. G., and ordering the state registrar to issue a new birth certificate for the child listing Father’s name. The Georgia Supreme Court granted Father’s discretionary application to address whether the court erred in ruling that it was without authority to correct the child’s surname. The Court agreed with Father that the trial court erred in its conclusion, albeit for a reason other than that urged by Father, and therefore vacated the judgment in part and remanded this case with direction and further proceedings. View "Denney v. Denney" on Justia Law

In 1991, the Georgia Supreme Court declared Bartow County’s zoning ordinance to be invalid. Two years later, Bartow County enacted a new zoning ordinance that, among other things, included a provision addressing vested rights for nonconforming use that were acquired during the absence of a valid zoning ordinance. Twenty-five years later, this case required a determination as to whether that 1993 vested-right provision was unconstitutional as applied to Appellant Southern States-Bartow County, Inc. Though the trial court concluded that the zoning provision in question suffered no constitutional infirmity, the Supreme Court disagreed. Because the zoning provision is unconstitutional as applied to Southern States, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Southern States-Bartow County, Inc. v. Riverwood Farm" on Justia Law