Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Monica and Martin Strunk were married in 1996 and had three children before divorcing in 2008. The husband sought a downward modification of child support in 2009, which the trial court granted. The wife challenged five of the trial court's findings related to child support. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings, with one exception: the Court reversed the trial court's grant of a $200 travel deviation to the husband due to its failure to enter the required written findings. View " Strunk v. Strunk" on Justia Law

Appellant Jonathan Redding was convicted of felony murder, participation in criminal street gang activity, and other crimes arising from a series of gang-related armed robberies. On appeal, he contended the trial court erred in instructing the jury. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Redding v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A jury found Christopher Phillips guilty of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer. On appeal, Phillips contended he received ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel's failure to object to the admission of certain evidence at trial. Finding that in light of the overwhelming evidence of Phillips' guilt on the other counts upon which he was found guilty, the Supreme Court concluded there was no reasonable probability the outcome in this case would have been more favorable had counsel objected to State's evidence in the manner that Phillips claimed he should have. View "Phillips v. Georgia" on Justia Law

While still a minor, appellant Marcus More was indicted on two counts of malice murder and other crimes relating to two fatal shootings. The State gave appellant notice of its intent to seek the death penalty and of the aggravating circumstance supporting the death penalty on which it intended to rely. A jury found appellant guilty on all charges, and rather than proceed to sentencing, he entered a negotiated plea agreement in which he agreed (inter alia) to waive his rights to appeal and all post-conviction review of his convictions and sentences. For that waiver, the State recommended (and the trial court accepted) a life sentence without the possibility of parole on one malice murder county, and consecutive sentences on the remaining counts. Four years after appellant received his sentence, the federal Supreme Court decided "Roper v. Simmons" (543 U.S. 551 (2005)). Based on that holding, appellant filed a motion to correct void sentence, claiming that Roper removed the death penalty as a sentencing option due to appellant's age. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, finding both that appellant waived his right to challenge his sentence and even if he had not waived the right, Roper did not apply so as to retroactively invalidate his sentence of life without parole. After its review, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded: (1) appellant, despite signing the plea agreement, cannot, according to Georgia case law, "bargain away" the right to challenge an illegal and void sentence; (2) appellant's sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was void as a sentence not allowed by law and the trial court's order denying the motion to correct void sentence was reversed. View "Moore v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After being found guilty of murder, felony murder and several other crimes, Willie Bryant appealed his convictions, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to obtain a DNA expert to counter the State's evidence against him. In reviewing the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that trial counsel made the determination that, rather than call a separate expert that would reiterate testimony already presented by the State she would focus her cross-examination of the State's own DNA expert to show that the results of the testing were highly inconclusive. As such, the Supreme Court determined trial counsel acted reasonably and did not render ineffective assistance. View "Bryant v. Georgia " on Justia Law

Derrick Bell pled guilty to malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Dominic King. Bell filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and later filed a motion to vacate void sentence. The trial court denied both motions, and he appealed. Finding that the trial court properly denied Bell's motions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Joseph Andrews was found guilty by jury of malice murder and felony murder in connection with the shooting death of Cornelius Lowe. On appeal he contended that his trial counsel was ineffective, that the trial court erred by allowing incriminating hearsay statements from his co-defendants to be admitted into evidence at trial, and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Andrews v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this called for the Court to decide the correct approach for determining whether a new sentence, imposed after the defendant's initial sentence has been vacated, constitutes a harsher sentence and thereby triggers a presumption of vindictiveness under "North Carolina v. Pearce," (395 U.S. 711 (1969)). More than three decades ago, the Georgia Supreme Court adopted what is known as the "count-by-count" approach. The majority of federal and state appellate courts adopted the alternative "aggregate" approach. In light of the momentum supporting Georgia's adoption of the aggregate approach, the Court granted certiorari to settle the issue with this case. View "Georgia v. Hudson" on Justia Law

Appellant Andrew Solomon was convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Levy Daniel. The only issue that Appellant raised on appeal was procedurally defaulted, and therefore the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. However, the Court vacated his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault, because the conviction for that offense merged with the murder conviction. View "Solomon v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Darian Scandrett appealed his conviction for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, contending that the trial court admitted improper evidence and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Scandrett v. Georgia" on Justia Law