Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Michael Darnell Harvey was convicted of malice murder, rape, aggravated sodomy, and aggravated assault in connection with the strangulation death of Valerie Payton. He appealed the denial of his motion for new trial in which he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and asserted that the trial court erred in the admission of similar transaction evidence. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Harvey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After his jury trial had begun, William James Henderson pled guilty to two counts of murder and additional counts of attempted murder, rape, burglary, and numerous lesser offenses. Henderson appealed pro se, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his out-of-time appeal. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court saw no error and affirmed. View "Henderson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant Jason Leon Heywood appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Andrew Wilson. Defendant challenged the trial court's refusal to continue the trial and empanel new prospective jurors based on a remark made during voir dire, his absence from bench conferences, the admission of certain blood spatter testimony, and the constitutionality of his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Finding no error in with the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Heywood v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Harold Hall of malice murder and robbery in connection with the beating death of 78-year-old Rachel Posey. On appeal he argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict and trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hall v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Jamon Jackson was convicted and sentenced to life in prison plus 20 years for fatally shooting his girlfriend Ashley White and burning her body inside her vehicle to conceal her death. After review of his arguments made on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that though the evidence was sufficient to authorize appellant's conviction for tampering with evidence, appellant committed misdemeanor tampering rather than felony tampering because he tampered with evidence in his own case. Accordingly, the ten-year sentence imposed on appellant for tampering was vacated and the case was remanded for imposition of a sentence for a misdemeanor. View "Jackson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Tchywaskie Lamar Jones was tried by a Dougherty County jury and convicted of aggravated assault and a violation of the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act in connection with a shooting at a public pool in Albany in which a bystander was wounded. Jones appealed and raised several claims of error, including that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court failed to respond as required when the prosecuting attorney spoke in his closing argument of facts outside the record. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for violation of the Street Gang Act, and agreed that the trial court failed to fulfill its obligations under OCGA 17-8-75. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jones v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jeff Dulcio appealed his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and co-defendant Michelle Morrison appealed her convictions for felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, all in connection with the fatal shooting of Keith Brown. Dulcio challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and Morrison challenged the admission into evidence of certain testimony at trial; both claimed that their respective trial attorneys were ineffective. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that both parties' challenges were without merit, and the convictions of both were affirmed. View "Dulcio v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Maurice Charleston and Scott Walker were indicted for malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Edric Finney. Following a joint trial, a jury found both defendants guilty on all counts. The Supreme Court had previously affirmed Walker's convictions. Because the issues raised by Appellant Charleston lacked merit, the Court affirmed his convictions too. View "Charleston v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Appellant Fernando Castillo-Solis's application for interlocutory appeal to challenge the trial court's ruling that OCGA 40-5-20(a), which prohibits driving in Georgia without a valid driver's license, was constitutional as applied to him. "Many of Appellant's constitutional challenges were premised on his incorrect interpretation of 40-5-20 (a) as including a 'retroactive amnesty' provision;" the Court concluded that the trial court properly construed that the statute does not allow a person who has been cited for driving without a valid license to avoid guilt by later obtaining a Georgia driver's license. Therefore the Court concluded that 40-5-20 (a) did not violate due process or equal protection as applied to Appellant, that the statute did not impair his right to defend himself in court, and that he failed to show that the Georgia statute was preempted by federal law. View "Castillo-Solis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant Gary Simpson appealed a trial court's denial of his motion in arrest of judgment. Defendant was convicted of and sentenced on three counts each of malice murder, aggravated assault and concealing a death. He filed a number of post-appeal motions with the superior court, and the court entered an order in 2011 that his motion was partially granted, finding that the aggravated assaults merged into the malice murders. The order set forth life sentences for each of the murder counts, and ten-year sentences for each count of concealing a death, all to be served consecutively. In his motion for arrest of judgment, Defendant argued that his indictment suffered from a fatal defect in its "deceptive language" and presented a "non amendable defect void on its face." The trial court denied Defendant's motion as untimely. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant contended that the trial court's sentencing order constituted a new judgment of conviction, and that his motion of arrest of judgment was indeed timely filed. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the trial court. View "Simpson v. Georgia" on Justia Law