Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Following a jury trial, Rayshawn White appealed his convictions for murder, felony murder, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial. Finding no merit to the alleged issues raised on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "White v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jerry von Thomas was convicted of a felony and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Because he previously had been convicted of three other felonies, he was sentenced as a recidivist. Years later, von Thomas moved the sentencing court to vacate his sentence, claiming that he should not have been sentenced as a recidivist because he was denied the assistance of counsel in connection with one of his prior convictions. The sentencing court denied his motion on the merits, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the sentencing court had jurisdiction over the motion only to the extent that von Thomas presented a cognizable claim that his sentence was void. Because von Thomas did not present a cognizable claim, his motion should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and no court should have reached the merits. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for the motion to be dismissed. View "von Thomas v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Gregory Grimes was tried by jury and convicted of the murder of Bobby Greer. He appealed, contending that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction, that he should have been convicted instead of voluntary manslaughter, and that the trial court erred by sentencing him as a recidivist. Finding no merit in these claims the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Grimes v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Randy Johnson, Jr., appealed his convictions for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and armed robbery, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that his due process rights were violated. Finding that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Prisoner Viondi Lewis filed a pro se appeal of the denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal. Lewis was indicted and charged along with three others of having committed two counts of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of armed robbery, aggravated assault, three counts of false imprisonment, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Lewis pled guilty to only one count of felony murder and was sentenced to life in prison; as part of the plea negotiations, an order of nolle prosequi was entered as to the remaining counts against him. Lewis filed a pro se motion for an out-of-time appeal, alleging that the trial court and his plea counsel failed to inform him of his appeal rights. Later he filed a "motion to amendment out of time appeal" making additional claims about the record, the voluntariness of the plea, and the conduct of his plea counsel. Following a hearing, the superior court denied the motion. Lewis filed a notice of appeal in late 2004, and the appeal was docketed in the Supreme Court in the April 2013 term. Lewis's complaints were "unavailing," and the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. View "Lewis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Joel Smith (husband) and Pamela Smith (wife) were divorced by entry of a final judgment and divorce decree. Husband subsequently was found in wilful contempt for failing to pay for health insurance for wife, failing to make mortgage payments on the marital home, and failing to turn over personal property awarded to wife in the final judgment. The Supreme Court granted husband's application for discretionary appeal to challenge the trial court's joint order holding him in contempt of the final judgment and denying his motions for new trial, to set aside or correct the final judgment. Finding no error in the trial court's rulings, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law

A grand jury returned an indictment against appellee Dwight Brown. Appellee filed a motion in abatement alleging the indictment was not returned in open court. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court agreed with appellee and quashed the indictment. The State appealed, but the appellate court affirmed. The State argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's ruling. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court. View "Georgia v. Brown" on Justia Law

Anthony Threatt was tried by jury and convicted of felony murder in the commission of an armed robbery, unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, all in connection with the fatal shooting of Robert Gresham. Threatt appealed, contending the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. The Supreme Court found no problem with the legal sufficiency of the evidence, but found that the trial court imposed a sentence that the law did not allow for unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Accordingly, the Court vacated that portion of the sentence, remanded for resentencing. The Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. View "Threatt v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Walter Bell was found guilty of first degree vehicular homicide, reckless driving, hit and run, and tampering with evidence in connection with the death of Jenny McMillan-Gutierrez. On appeal he contended, among other things, that OCGA 40-6-270 (a) and 40-8-76.1 (d) were unconstitutional. Finding no merit to these contentions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bell v. Georgia " on Justia Law

Amin Dennis was convicted by jury of malice murder, kidnapping with bodily injury, and other crimes in connection with the deaths of Jerry Lee Lawrence and Harold Reese, Jr. On appeal, Dennis contended that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily make his statement to police. Because the trial court correctly ruled that Dennis’s statement was voluntary and admissible, the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. View "Dennis v. Georgia" on Justia Law