Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs, who operate restaurants under franchise agreements, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition based on advice from their legal counsel. This led to the franchisor terminating the franchise agreements. The plaintiffs then sued their lawyers and law firms for legal malpractice and breach of written contracts for legal services, alleging that the lawyers' advice constituted malpractice. The defendants moved to dismiss both claims, arguing they were barred by a four-year statute of limitation under OCGA § 9-3-25.The trial court dismissed the legal-malpractice claims but denied the motion to dismiss the breach-of-contract claims. Later, it granted summary judgment for a subset of defendants, ruling that the breach-of-contract claims were also barred by the four-year statute of limitation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the legal-malpractice claims and concluded that the breach-of-contract claims were duplicative and should be dismissed as well.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine which statute of limitation applies to breach-of-contract-for-legal-services claims and whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing these claims as duplicative. The Supreme Court concluded that such claims could be governed by either a six-year statute of limitation under OCGA § 9-3-24 or a four-year statute under OCGA § 9-3-25, depending on whether the breach arose directly from a written contract. The Court also held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the breach-of-contract claims as duplicative without applying the proper motion-to-dismiss standard.The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, emphasizing that plaintiffs can pursue alternative theories of relief based on the same conduct. View "TITSHAW v. GEER" on Justia Law

Alfred Moore was convicted in 2016 of first-degree burglary and other crimes, resulting in a total sentence of 45 years. On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. Moore then filed a habeas corpus petition, later amended, arguing that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the first-degree burglary count in the indictment. Moore contended that the indictment did not allege an essential element of first-degree burglary, specifically that he entered a "dwelling house" or a building "designed for use as [a] dwelling."The habeas court denied Moore's petition, concluding that the indictment was sufficient because it referenced the first-degree burglary statute. Moore appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which granted his application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal, focusing on whether the habeas court erred in its ruling.The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the indictment failed to allege all essential elements of first-degree burglary, as it only mentioned that Moore entered a "business." The court determined that trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a special demurrer to challenge the indictment. This failure was not a reasonable trial strategy, and it was reasonably probable that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the indictment had been challenged. The court also found that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising this issue on appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the habeas court's denial of relief regarding Moore's first-degree burglary conviction and remanded the case with directions to vacate that conviction and grant appropriate relief. View "MOORE v. WHITE" on Justia Law

Andy Espinosa pleaded guilty to the malice murder of Zachary Mejia and other related offenses. Espinosa was living with his girlfriend and her four children, including Zachary. On December 8, 2020, Espinosa and Zachary had a physical altercation, which left Espinosa feeling humiliated. The next day, Espinosa searched online about what it feels like to murder someone. Later that day, he returned home, grabbed a knife, and fatally stabbed Zachary. Espinosa called 9-1-1 and was arrested. He later claimed he was overtaken by a "demon" during the stabbing.Espinosa was indicted by a Chattooga County grand jury and pleaded guilty to all counts without a sentencing recommendation from the State. The trial court sentenced him to life without parole for malice murder, a consecutive five-year term for possession of a knife during the commission of a felony, and a concurrent 12-month term for cruelty to children in the third degree. Espinosa filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not advising him of an insanity defense.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. Espinosa claimed his plea counsel was ineffective for not investigating his mental state and advising him of a potential insanity defense. Plea counsel testified that he did not see a viable defense and believed a plea was in Espinosa's best interest. The court found that counsel's performance was not deficient, as his strategic decisions were based on his professional judgment and experience. The court also noted that Espinosa did not provide evidence of past mental health issues or expert testimony supporting an insanity defense.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Espinosa's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court held that Espinosa failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient. View "Espinosa v. State" on Justia Law

Denarius Harris was convicted of felony murder and a firearm charge in connection with the shooting death of Dallas Spruill. Harris claimed he acted in self-defense, but the jury rejected this claim. The incident occurred when Spruill, along with Christian Boss and Pamela Blue, was selling TVs around Atlanta. They met Harris at an apartment complex, where a confrontation ensued, resulting in Harris shooting Spruill. Witnesses provided differing accounts of the events, but all agreed that Harris shot Spruill.The Fulton County grand jury indicted Harris on multiple charges, including malice murder and felony murder. The jury found him guilty of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, but acquitted him of other charges. Harris was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder and an additional five years for the firearm charge. His motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Harris's appeal, focusing on his claims regarding the trial court's jury instructions on self-defense. Harris argued that the instructions were erroneous and could have misled the jury. However, the Supreme Court found that the instructions were correct statements of the law and followed the pattern jury instructions. The court held that the instructions did not confuse the jury as Harris claimed and affirmed his convictions and sentence. The court also rejected Harris's argument that the instructions placed undue emphasis on the use of deadly force, finding no error in the trial court's explanation of self-defense. Thus, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the judgment. View "HARRIS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In January 2015, Kristian Wipfel, along with Dennis Eason, Jr., Tevin Sams, Antonio Garvin, and Jeremy Jackson, confronted Dejad Williams over a drug dispute. The confrontation led to a shooting at Williams's apartment, resulting in the death of eight-year-old Jai’mel Anderson. Wipfel was indicted for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, making terroristic threats, and firearm possession during a felony. At trial, Garvin and Jackson testified against Wipfel, Eason, and Sams. The jury found Wipfel guilty of all charges except making terroristic threats.The trial court sentenced Wipfel to life without parole for malice murder, 20 years for aggravated assault, and consecutive five-year terms for the firearm offenses. Wipfel's motion for a new trial was denied, and his subsequent appeal was dismissed due to procedural issues. After rectifying the notification issue, Wipfel filed a timely appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Wipfel's claim that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser offense of malice murder. Wipfel argued that his actions amounted to reckless conduct rather than malice murder. The court applied the plain error review standard, which requires showing that the error was clear, affected the trial's outcome, and impacted the fairness of the proceedings.The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to give the involuntary manslaughter instruction sua sponte, as Wipfel did not request it. The court reaffirmed the rule from State v. Stonaker, which states that a trial court's failure to instruct on a lesser offense without a request is not error. Consequently, Wipfel's claim of plain error failed, and the court affirmed his conviction. View "WIPFEL v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Markisha Lattimore obtained a judgment exceeding $20 million against Kim Brothers Kickin’ Kids, LLC. Instead of collecting directly from Kickin’ Kids, Lattimore initiated garnishment actions against twelve financial services companies, including RBC Global Asset Management (U.S.), Inc. (Global), using a garnishment summons form for financial institutions. Global, a registered investment advisor, did not respond to the summons, leading Lattimore to move for a garnishment default judgment for the full amount. Global claimed it did not receive the motion and did not respond. The State Court of Fulton County entered a default judgment against Global.The State Court of Fulton County denied Global’s motion to set aside the default judgment. The court ruled that Global was a financial institution, that Lattimore used the correct summons form, and that Global waived any defect in the form used. Global argued that it was not a financial institution as defined by the statute and that the incorrect summons form invalidated the garnishment action, thus failing to establish personal jurisdiction. The court also ruled that Global could not challenge the constitutionality of the default judgment in its motion to set aside.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and reversed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Global, as a registered investment advisor, did not meet the statutory definition of a financial institution. Therefore, Lattimore used the wrong summons form, rendering the garnishment invalid and failing to obtain personal jurisdiction over Global. The court concluded that the State Court of Fulton County abused its discretion in denying Global’s motion to set aside the default judgment. The judgment was reversed. View "RBC GLOBAL ASSET MANAGEMENT (U.S.) INC. v. LATTIMORE" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of a woman. The incident occurred on August 22, 2014, when the victim was found dead and burned at a city dump. Evidence linked the appellant, a police officer, to the crime through cell phone records, DNA, and ballistic tests. The appellant admitted to meeting the victim for sex but claimed the shooting was accidental during a struggle over a gun.The Fulton County grand jury indicted the appellant on multiple charges, including malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. A jury trial held in October 2016 resulted in the appellant being found guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison without parole for malice murder and additional consecutive sentences for other charges. The appellant's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court in November 2023.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and addressed several claims of error by the appellant. The court concluded that any error in limiting the defense of accident to the aggravated assault charge was harmless, as the jury found the appellant guilty of malice murder, which required a finding of malicious intent. The court also found no error in the trial court's refusal to charge the jury on the defense of habitation, as there was no evidence the victim was entering or attacking the appellant's car when shot. Lastly, the court determined that the appellant failed to establish plain error regarding the jury instructions on justification. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the appellant's convictions. View "RANA v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Michael Earl Summerville was convicted of felony murder in connection with the death of Martha West. On December 10, 2017, Summerville and West, who were romantic partners, visited their neighbor Johnny Clark. After an argument, Summerville returned to Clark’s home later that night, reporting that West had fallen in a nearby field. West was found deceased in the field, with evidence suggesting she had been struck by a vehicle. Summerville’s truck showed signs of a collision, and fibers consistent with West’s clothing were found on the truck. An autopsy revealed extensive injuries consistent with being struck by a motor vehicle.A Wilkes County grand jury indicted Summerville for malice murder, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, and aggravated assault, family violence. He was found not guilty of malice murder but guilty of the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for felony murder, with the aggravated assault charge merging for sentencing purposes. Summerville’s motion for a new trial was denied, and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Summerville’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and trial court error. Summerville argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to a comment in the State’s closing argument and that the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of a witness. The court held that the prosecutor’s comment during closing arguments was a permissible inference from the evidence, and thus, any objection would have been meritless. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in limiting the cross-examination of the medical examiner, as Summerville failed to show that the examiner’s prior disciplinary action was probative of potential bias. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. View "Summerville v. State" on Justia Law

Willie Felix Thompson was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Felicia Sullivan. Thompson and Sullivan had a tumultuous relationship marked by several violent incidents. On April 19, 2021, Thompson returned to their shared residence to collect his belongings but ended up shooting Sullivan during an altercation. Thompson claimed self-defense, stating that Sullivan attacked him first. However, forensic evidence and witness testimonies contradicted his account.A Cobb County grand jury indicted Thompson on charges including malice murder and aggravated assault. During the trial, the jury found him guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison without parole for malice murder and an additional five years for the weapons charge. Thompson's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and upheld the convictions. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court also determined that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding prior-bad-acts and prior-difficulties evidence. The Supreme Court concluded that Thompson failed to demonstrate any clear or obvious error in the jury instructions and affirmed the lower court's decision. View "THOMPSON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In March 2020, the appellant was convicted of malice murder and related charges for the shooting death of Mondavius Milan. The incident occurred on April 3, 2018, in Atlanta, involving a check fraud scheme with the appellant, Milan, and Jaleesia Mathis. On the morning of the shooting, the group, including Mathis's partner Japhar White, was in a car when an argument over missing money escalated. Witnesses testified that the appellant pulled out a gun, and after a struggle, Milan was shot. Both Mathis and White fled the scene, later identifying the appellant as the shooter. The appellant was arrested in Massachusetts and extradited to Georgia.The appellant was indicted by a Fulton County grand jury and found guilty on all counts by a jury. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for malice murder and additional consecutive sentences for firearm charges. The appellant's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court after an evidentiary hearing. The appellant then filed a timely notice of appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case, focusing on two main contentions: ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficient evidence. The court held that the appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective for advising him not to testify, as the counsel's advice was based on reasonable strategic considerations. The court also found that the evidence, including corroborating testimony from accomplices and other witnesses, was sufficient to support the conviction. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the appellant's claims lacked merit. View "NABORS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law