Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Benjamin Brown was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony in connection with the stabbing death of Ron Williams. Appellant’s motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed that decision and his conviction. Appellant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective under the standards set forth in "Strickland v. Washington," (466 U. S. 668). Specifically, appellant claimed his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to locate and call a witness allegedly material to appellant's self-defense claim. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Adrian White was tried by jury and convicted of murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Anthony Jones. He appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, contending, among other things, that the trial court erred in its application of the standard to general grounds of his motion. The Supreme Court agreed the trial court applied the wrong standard, vacated the denial of the motion and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "White v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In the first appeal of defendant Calvin Moore's conviction for malice murder, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, but vacated the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a hearing on similar transaction evidence under the Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3B(B). The trial court concluded that the similar transaction evidence was properly admitted and reinstated the judgment of conviction. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the State's evidence was properly admitted at trial and that there were no other errors, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "Moore v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Gregory Russell was tried and convicted for felony murder and possessing a firearm during the commission of a crime in connection with the shooting death of his wife. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's refusal to grant a mistrial in his appeal to the Supreme Court. Finding no merit to his contentions of error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Russell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

William Valentine, Jr. was tried by jury and convicted of murder and kidnapping. His motion for a new trial was denied, and he appealed, contending that the trial court did not give his trial attorney enough time to prepare for the testimony of an expert witness, and as such, was denied effective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed. View "Valentine v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Ronnie Lee Wilson was convicted of felony murder and related crimes in connection with the July 2010 shooting death of Reginald Williams. Appellant appealed the denial of his motion for new trial, asserting insufficiency of the evidence and errors in the admission of a custodial statement and similar transaction evidence. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wilson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Mark Hipp was arrested after he pulled a knife during a fight in a bar. Following his indictment for aggravated assault and simple battery, he filed a pretrial motion to dismiss based on immunity from prosecution, which the trial court denied. At trial, the jury rejected Hipp's self-defense claim and convicted him on both counts. On motion for new trial, the trial court granted Hipp a new trial on the grounds that the evidence presented at the pretrial hearing established that he was entitled to immunity. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court could not make a post-conviction determination that Hipp was immune from prosecution. After it's review of the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that a trial court has the authority during the same term of court to revise its pretrial ruling denying immunity from prosecution after a trial and prior to entry of the final judgment. View "Hipp v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant William Nazario pled guilty to 17 of 26-counts of an indictment charging him with numerous crimes related to the beating and stabbing death of his girlfriend and the mistreatment of her three daughters. Despite Appellant's argument at the plea hearing that several of his 17 convictions merged, the trial court sentenced him for all 17 crimes. On direct appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellant again raised the claim that several of his convictions merged. The State argued that because Appellant pled to those crimes, he waived the right to claim merger. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that a line of precedential appellate cases that held that a guilty plea waives merger claims. But the Court concluded that those cases were wrongly decided. A conviction that merges with another conviction is void, and a sentence imposed on such a void conviction is illegal and will be vacated if the Supreme Court noticed it, even if no merger claim was raised in the trial court and the defendant does not raised it on appeal. Both the indictment and the factual basis for the guilty plea show that Appellant's five separate convictions for concealing the death of his girlfriend merged into a single conviction and should have resulted in only one sentence for that crime rather than the five separate sentences that the trial court imposed. Accordingly, the Court vacated four of Appellant's five concealment convictions and sentences. View "Nazario v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Brothers-defendants Gerardo and Eduardo Sifuentes were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted of malice murder and related offenses in connection with a shooting that killed one person and injured two others. Both moved for a new trial, and both were denied. In addition, Gerardo challenged the trial court's denial of his motion for pretrial immunity based on self-defense. Upon review of the cases, the Supreme Court found no error, except in Eduardo's conviction for theft by taking; the Court found that count was not supported by the evidence, and therefore his convictions on two additional counts predicated on the theft by taking were in error too. The Court affirmed the judgment against Gerardo in its entirety, and affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment against Eduardo. View "Sifuentes v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Steven George Stratacos challenged four of his convictions for felony theft by deception based on his deceitful promises to perform various construction services. He claimed that the evidence presented at trial showed he provided some services but did not establish their value, and thus the evidence did not support the jury's guilty verdicts. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence presented was sufficient to support appellant's felony convictions, but insufficient to support even a misdemeanor conviction as to one. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. View "Statacos v. Georgia" on Justia Law