Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Zerrick Walker appealed the denial of his motion for new trial following his convictions for the malice murder of Ronaldo Hill and the crime of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In his sole contention of error in this appeal, Walker argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and asserted that counsel was ineffective in changing trial strategy from a claim that someone other than Walker shot Hill, to include an argument that whoever shot Hill was justified in doing so. The Supreme Court found that Walker failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different had counsel pursued only the defense that Walker was not the shooter. Accordingly, the Court affirmed his conviction. View "Walker v. Georgia" on Justia Law

This matter arose from wrongful death suit filed by appellant Tammy Pearce individually and as administrator of the estate of her husband, Christopher Pearce, against Glynn County Police Officer Henry Tucker after Christopher committed suicide while in custody. On the day of his suicide, Christopher (who suffered from major depressive disorder) arrived unexpectedly at his pastor’s house carrying a pistol in his hand; the pastor and his wife summoned help while Christopher remained outside. Officers Henry Tucker and William Tomlinson, Jr., arrived at the residence and observed Christopher with a gun tucked in his waistband. Christopher, a convicted felon, was subsequently handcuffed, relieved of the firearm, and placed in a patrol car. Officer Tucker transported Christopher to the Glynn County Police Department headquarters. Once at the headquarters, Christopher was placed in a holding cell with a monitored video feed. Pursuant to police department policy, Officer Tucker had Christopher remove his shoes, belt, tie, and the contents of his pockets. Approximately 15-20 minutes after being placed in the holding cell, Christopher ended his life by hanging himself with his socks. The trial court denied Officer Tucker’s motion for summary judgment; the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that there was insufficient evidence that any negligent act by Officer Tucker proximately caused Christopher's death, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to review that decision. The Supreme Court held that as a threshold matter that Officer Tucker was entitled to qualified immunity, and it therefore did not address the merits of Appellant’s negligence claim. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals under the "right-for-any-reason" rule. View "Pearce v. Tucker" on Justia Law

After 29 years of marriage and three children, appellant Sharmeen Islamkhan (“wife”) filed for divorce. She sought review of the denial of her motion to vacate void judgment in which she asked the trial court to vacate its order modifying certain provisions of the parties’ final divorce decree. Wife argued that, prior to entry of the modification order, appellee Shoeb Khan (“husband”) filed a notice of appeal of the final divorce decree which acted as supersedeas and deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to modify the appealed order. The Georgia Supreme Court granted wife’s application for appeal and asked the parties to address a series of questions related to the issue of whether supersedeas had attached. After review, the Court found that the divorce decree entered by the trial court was not a final judgment and, as a result, husband’s failure to follow the procedures set forth in OCGA 5-6-34 (b) for obtaining interlocutory review rendered his notice of appeal nugatory. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of wife’s motion to vacate. View "Islamkhan v. Khan" on Justia Law

Appellant Sheree Dionne Murphy was tried by jury and found guilty of five counts of felony murder, aggravated battery, arson in the first degree, and cruelty to a child, all of which charges were related to a motel fire resulting in the deaths of five people. She was sentenced to life in prison, and she appealed the denial of her motion for new trial, asserting, among other things that she was denied her constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of the proceedings, that the State failed to provide her with notice prior to trial of an expert opinion, and that the guilty verdicts were the result of: (1) extrajudicial information improperly introduced to jurors during their deliberations; and (2) an outside influence that caused a deliberating juror to surrender her vote for acquittal. After carefully reviewing the record, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed appellant’s convictions. View "Murphy v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following the reversal of his original convictions, appellant Daniel Allaben was retried and again convicted of malice murder in connection with the strangling death of his wife, Maureen. He appealed, asserting numerous grounds. Though the Georgia Supreme Court concluded after review of the trial court record that the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction, it agreed with appellant that the trial court failed to properly apply the rule of completeness and erroneously denied Appellant’s request to instruct the jury on certain lesser-included offenses. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Allaben v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Arthur (a/k/a “Ricky”) Starling was convicted of murder, aggravated assault, third degree child cruelty, and related offenses in connection with the Independence Day 2010 shooting death of his long-time girlfriend at her home in the presence of several of her family members. Starling appealed, arguing he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and that the trial court erred in admitting his statements to law enforcement officers. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Starling v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Johnathan Durden was convicted of malice murder and related offenses in connection with the stabbing death of Ricky Grice, Jr. Durden appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to grant his request to quash his indictment and in failing to give a curative instruction after alleged improper comments were made by the prosecutor during closing argument. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Durden v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Bajrodin Zilke was charged with two counts of driving under the influence and several other traffic violations. He moved to suppress evidence of a breath test, arguing that Decari Mason, a POST-certified police officer employed at Kennesaw State University (“KSU”) lacked jurisdiction to arrest him because, without dispute, the traffic stop did not occur on or near KSU property. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision to grant appellant’s motion to suppress, holding that a POST-certified campus police officer was authorized to make arrests for traffic offenses committed in his presence though outside the territorial limits of the campus at issue. he Supreme Court agreed that Officer Mason had no authority to effect a custodial arrest of appellant outside the jurisdiction conferred by OCGA 20-3-72, and reversed the Court of Appeals. View "Zilke v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dante Hayward's application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied, and the Supreme Court granted his request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal that denial. In 2007, Hayward pled guilty on drug charges and received an aggregate sentence of twenty-five years, with eight to serve in prison, and seventeen on probation. Hayward was released on parole in 2009; a little over a year later, the State moved to revoke Hayward's probation based on allegations he was arrested and charged with three new criminal offenses. The trial court subsequently revoked the balance of Hayward's aggregate sentence, leaving him to serve a little over twenty years in prison. Hayward argued that the habeas court erred in finding the trial court's revocation of his parole was not a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. The Supreme Court found that "[a] judicial attempt to control parole conditions 'violates the constitutional provision regarding the separation of powers.'" Hayward had been granted parole by the Parole Board and was in its legal custody until the expiration of his sentence, or until pardoned. No revocation of a probated sentence "shall be effective while a defendant is in the legal custody of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles." The Court therefore reversed the habeas court's denial of Hayward's petition for relief and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hayward v. Danforth" on Justia Law

Husband Timothy Frost and Wife Hwa Frost were married in 1980 when Husband was in the U.S. Army and stationed in Korea country. The couple relocated to Georgia upon Husband’s retirement from the military after seventeen years of service. Husband was then-employed, but Wife was not, claiming to be disabled. Husband filed for divorce in 2013. After a bench trial, the court entered an order granting the divorce, declaring a division of marital property, awarding alimony to Wife, and denying Wife’s request for an award of attorney fees. As part of the alimony award, the trial court granted Wife one-half of Husband’s military retirement pay until Wife died or remarried. The Supreme Court granted Wife’s application for discretionary appeal in order to examine whether the trial court erred in awarding a portion of Husband’s military retirement pay as alimony, subject to termination upon Wife’s death or remarriage, as opposed to treating it as a marital asset subject to equitable division. After review, the Supreme Court found that the order declaring that payment of Husband’s military retirement benefits “shall continue until [Wife] dies or remarries” was contrary to law and was reversed. Upon remand, the trial court was instructed to award to Wife her equitable portion of Husband’s military retirement benefits as part of the equitable division of marital property that will survive Wife’s death or remarriage. The Court affirmed in all other respects. View "Frost v. Frost" on Justia Law