Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2011, a grand jury indicted Rodney Lane for malice murder, felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault, felony murder while in the commission of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. These charges stemmed from the death of Donald Dye. On July 22, 2011, Lane was reindicted on the same charges. He was ultimately found guilty on all charges, for which he received life in prison for malice murder and consecutive prison terms on the other counts that did not merge with malice murder and that were not vacated by operation of law. He appealed, challenging the evidence presented against him and arguing he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Lane's convictions and sentences. View "Lane v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Quentin Cooks was tried by jury and convicted of murder and several other crimes in connection with the 2005 fatal shooting of Shawn Powe. Cooks appealed, contending that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court erred when it prohibited him from presenting evidence of prior acts of violence committed by Powe against third parties. The Supreme Court found no merit in Cooks’s claims, but noted that the trial court erred when it failed to sentence him for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Accordingly, Cooks' sentence was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and the case remanded for resentencing. View "Cooks v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Dewayne Reynolds appealed his convictions for felony murder and other crimes stemming from the 2012 shooting death of Willie Slack. Appellant argued the evidence was insufficient to convict, contended the trial court erred when it failed to give a requested jury instruction, and contended the trial court improperly commented on the evidence. Finding no merit to these arguments, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, but vacated the judgment in part and remanded to correct a merger error and for re-sentencing. View "Reynolds v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant James Ellison appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct void sentence. In September 1994, appellant pled guilty to malice murder and was sentenced to life in prison. Under the plea agreement, which was expressly incorporated into appellant’s sentencing order, appellant agreed that he would not apply for parole or other relief from imprisonment for at least 25 years and that he would not be considered for parole or released from confinement for any reason prior to the expiration of 25 years. In April 2015, appellant, acting pro se, filed his motion, challenging the validity of such limitations on his ability to seek or be granted parole. The trial court summarily denied appellant’s motion, and appellant brought this appeal. Less than a month after appellant filed his notice of appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court issued its opinion in "Humphrey v. Georgia," in which it addressed the validity of a plea agreement containing a provision almost identical to that here. Under the controlling authority of "Humphrey," the Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case with direction to vacate that portion of Ellison’s sentence which purported to limit his eligibility for parole in a manner not authorized by statutory law. View "Ellison v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2004, appellant Gustavo Cisneros was indicted, along with eight others, for crimes related to a series of home invasions in Gwinnett County. In 2008, following a separate jury trial at which two of his co-indictees testified, appellant was found guilty of six counts of armed robbery, eight counts of burglary, two counts of criminal attempt to commit armed robbery, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of sexual battery. His convictions were affirmed in part and reversed in part on appeal to the Court of Appeals. He raised a number of issues on appeal, primarily challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial and that the Court of Appeals erred in the conclusions it drew in its judgment of conviction. Finding none of these arguments availing, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant's convictions. View "Cisneros v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Marcus Mullins appealed his convictions for felony murder and related crimes stemming from the death of Damien Daniels. On the night in question, appellant and his friends Thomas Harris, Kenneth Dwight, and Karalo Brownlee, attended a house party in DeKalb County. Some partygoers spilled out from the house into the street. Daniels and his friends were socializing and drinking at a house two doors down from the party. Daniels’s friends testified that he was intoxicated and was dancing on cars with his shirt off during the party. At some point, gunshots rang out and some partygoers decided to leave. While attempting to move his car in order to make a U-turn, appellant almost hit Daniels leading the two young men to exchange angry words, and, according to Harris’s testimony as well as the testimony of another witness, appellant brandished a gun at Daniels. Several minutes later, a second encounter occurred between appellant and Daniels. Harris testified that as appellant was completing the U-turn to leave the neighborhood, appellant told Harris, “I’m going to get him,” referring to Daniels. Harris testified appellant drove near Daniels, stopped the vehicle, placed one foot outside of his vehicle and began shooting. Harris also said that as appellant was stepping out of the car with one foot, appellant told Daniels to “come here.” Several eyewitnesses testified Daniels was shirtless and unarmed when appellant shot him. Appellant shot Daniels five times and Daniels died from gunshot wounds to his torso. Appellant appealed, alleging multiple errors at trial. Seeing "no basis to reverse appellant's conviction," the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Mullins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Pandora Franchising, LLC was a foreign limited liability company. In its application for certificate of authority to transact business in Georgia, Pandora identified its principal place of business in Maryland. Appellee Kingdom Retail Group (“Kingdom”) filed suit against Pandora in Thomas County Superior Court, alleging Pandora wrongfully withheld its consent to Kingdom’s bid to acquire a number of Pandora franchises. Kingdom alleged venue was proper in Thomas County pursuant to OCGA 14-2-510 (b) (4) because the cause of action originated in Thomas County. Over Kingdom’s objection, the trial court granted Pandora’s request to remove the complaint to Gwinnett County where, Pandora claimed in its notice of removal, “it maintains its registered office as its principal place of business in Georgia.” The Court of Appeals granted Kingdom’s application for interlocutory review and reversed the grant of removal. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly construed OCGA 14-2-510 (b) (4) to mean that, in a claim in which the basis for venue was the allegation that the cause of action originated in the county where the claim was filed, only a corporation with its worldwide principal place of business, or “nerve center” in Georgia had the right to remove the claim to the county in Georgia where that principal place of business was located. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision and adopted the reasoning set forth in that court’s opinion. View "Pandora Franchising, LLC v. Kingdom Retail Group, LLLP" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted Jesus Garibay’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal to address whether the habeas court erred in dismissing his habeas petition for failure to prosecute where no written order was taken within five years even though the petition had been orally denied at an earlier hearing and all that remained in the proceeding was for the habeas court to enter an order memorializing its ruling. Concluding that Garibay’s petition was improperly dismissed, the Supreme Court reversed the habeas court’s order and remanded this matter to the habeas court. View "Garibay v. Terry" on Justia Law

Appellant Paulette Pippen was convicted of felony murder and cruelty to a person 65 years of age or older in connection with the November 2010 death of Joseph Ray. Pippen appealed, alleging that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction, that the trial court gave erroneous jury instructions, and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pippen v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal to address whether the trial court erred when it denied enforcement of the parties’ post-nuptial agreement. In 2014, Brenda Murray (Wife) initiated divorce proceedings against Gary Murray (Husband). The parties, who had been married for approximately 34 years, began discussing the prospect of divorce several months prior. Though Husband indicated his desire to divorce, Wife wanted to save the marriage and, to that end, wrote Husband a letter of apology renouncing her rights in the marital estate. Wife claims that she wrote this letter at Husband’s behest and that its terms reflected what Husband wanted it to say. Husband subsequently engaged counsel to draw up a formal post-nuptial agreement providing for the disposition of the couple’s marital property upon dissolution of the marriage by divorce or death, which was favorable toward Husband. The parties signed the Agreement on June 5, 2014. Several months after the Agreement was executed, and following unfruitful attempts at marriage counseling, Wife filed for divorce in October. Husband moved to enforce the Agreement, and Wife objected, claiming that Husband had induced her to sign the Agreement with the promise that he would tear it up as soon as she signed it, making her believe her execution of the Agreement was merely a symbolic gesture of love and devotion that would have no practical effect. Husband, on the other hand, contended that he merely promised to destroy the Agreement if and when he “was comfortable they were in love again.” Following a hearing, the trial court denied Husband’s motion, finding the Agreement unenforceable. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found the trial court properly found that the postnuptial agreement was unenforceable and affirmed. View "Murray v. Murray" on Justia Law