Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Caesar Dupree appealed his convictions for malice murder and two counts of felony murder for the shooting death of John Darrisaw. Dupree's sole argument on appeal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions: the evidence showed he acted in self-defense, or, at most, the evidence supported only a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. The Supreme Court found that the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for malice murder as well as the felony murder counts of the indictment. View "Dupree v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Donald Deloatch was tried by jury and convicted of the murder of Jermaine Bowlds. Deloatch contended on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects, namely by failing to conduct an adequate investigation. Finding that Deloatch did not meet his burden to prove he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "Deloatch v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Prisoner Dustin Coulter, acting pro se, appealed the denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal after he pled guilty to two counts of malice murder. He argued he was denied a direct appeal due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and inadequate advice about his appellate rights. The Superior Court determined Coulter did not meet the requirements for granting an out-of-time appeal. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Coulter v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In March 2007, a grand jury indicted Appellant Tyrone Brown, along with co-defendants Kevin Michael Brewington and Gary Hakeem Brown, each with two counts of malice murder, four counts of felony murder, armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime, discharge of a firearm near a highway, and discharge of a firearm on the property of another. The grand jury also charged Appellant with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Appellant was convicted, and he appealed, arguing contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial and denied his motion to suppress. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Mary Ann Bragg was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault in connection with the murder of her husband, Tom. On appeal, Bragg argued, among other things, that the trial court erred by admitting similar transaction evidence of soliciting others to kill her husband, and by improperly charging the jury on parties to a crime. Bragg further claimed that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bragg v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The trial court certified a class of plaintiffs in this lawsuit against the Department of Human Services. The Department appealed, and in "Deal v. Miller," (739 SE2d 487) (2013)), the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the named plaintiffs failed in several respects to show that class certification was warranted. The Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to review that decision, and finding no reversible error, affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Miller v. Deal" on Justia Law

Warden Gregory McLaughlin appealed the grant of a writ of habeas corpus to William Payne. In 2006, Payne was convicted on two counts of aggravated child molestation, three counts of child molestation, and one count of cruelty to children. At trial, then District Attorney for Douglas County, David McDade, appeared as a witness for the State. He identified himself to the jury as the district attorney, identified the examining prosecuting attorney as his assistant, and outlined his duties as district attorney. He also testified that his daughter was a classmate of the victim named in the indictment; his daughter told him what she had heard of the crimes; he participated in an interview of Payne early in the investigation; during the first few days of the investigation, law enforcement efforts were focused on finding Payne; and, that after his interview, he realized he would likely be a witness at trial, and removed himself from Payne's prosecution. Payne appealed, but his convictions were affirmed. In 2009, Payne filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, raising, inter alia, a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The habeas court found that McDade had a conflict of interest, had testified falsely at trial, and that appellate counsel should have pursued these two issues on appeal. The habeas court also found that had the issues been raised on appeal, the result of Payne's direct appeal would have been different. The court granted the writ of habeas corpus. The warden argued that the habeas court erred in finding that the representation by Payne's appellate counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the assistant district attorney who acted at trial did so under the authority vested in McDade as the elected district attorney. McDade's disqualifying personal conflict of interest removed that authority, and he was not replaced as provided for by statute. View "McLaughlin v. Payne" on Justia Law

In August 2004, Jimmie Ray Williams filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus alleging, among other claims, that Billy Grantham, his attorney at trial and on direct appeal, provided ineffective assistance of counsel. In 2002, a jury Williams of sexually molesting his 13-year-old stepdaughter and her 14-year-old friend in 2000, after a trial at which his 20-year-old daughter was allowed to testify, as a similar transaction, that Williams touched her sexually four times in one night in 1993, when she was 11 years old and living with him in Florida. The trial court sentenced Williams to serve a total of 20 years in prison followed by 20 years on probation, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Williams claimed that Grantham conducted a deficient pretrial investigation by failing to obtain Florida court records showing that the alleged similar transaction never took place. Williams argued that if Grantham had conducted a competent investigation and found those records, his daughter’s testimony would have been excluded before trial or successfully impeached at trial, creating a reasonable probability that the trial verdict would have been more favorable to Williams. The habeas court initially denied Williams' petition in November 2006, but in January 2008 the Supreme Court granted his application to appeal and vacated that judgment because the habeas court had not allowed Williams a full and fair opportunity to present his claims. On remand, at a new evidentiary hearing, Williams presented the Florida court records and showed that they were readily available to Grantham at the time of trial. The habeas court entered a detailed order setting aside Williams' convictions. The Warden appealed, arguing, among other things, that reversal was required because the Florida court records on which the habeas court based its finding of ineffective assistance of counsel were never admitted into evidence in the habeas proceedings; the court erred in finding deficient performance; the court erred in finding prejudice based on its erroneous determination that the Florida records amounted to acquittal evidence that collaterally estopped the admission of the similar transaction; and the court erred in finding prejudice because of the "overwhelming evidence" of Williams' guilt, aside from the similar transaction testimony, that was presented at trial. The Supreme Court found that the Florida court records were indeed admitted into evidence at the 2008 habeas hearing, and Court agreed with the habeas court that Grantham's investigation of the alleged similar transaction was professionally deficient. The Warden was correct that the habeas court erred in treating the Florida records as acquittal evidence precluding the admission of the similar transaction testimony, but the Warden was wrong in his assertion that the evidence at Williams' trial, aside from the similar transaction evidence, was overwhelming. The Supreme Court affirmed the habeas court's judgment. View "Humphrey v. Williams" on Justia Law

Derrick Heard appealed his conviction for the murder of Robert Ledbetter. Heard argued on appeal that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated; that the trial court erred by allowing two of the State's peremptory strikes; and that the court erred by preventing him from introducing certain evidence about Ledbetter. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Heard v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Fredrick Choisnet, Jr. was indicted and tried for murder and related charges in connection with the stabbing death of his elderly father. Appellant pled not guilty by reason of insanity as he was under the delusion that his father was planning to kill him and his mother. The jury found Choisnet guilty but mentally ill, and Choisnet appealed, contending that the trial court's instructions to the jury were erroneous in several ways. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Choisnet v. Georgia" on Justia Law