Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Supreme Court of Georgia
STARKS v. THE STATE
Joseph Donnell Starks was convicted of felony murder and other crimes following a vehicular collision that resulted in the death of Kristin Dyer and serious injury to Joshua Cash. The incident occurred on December 14, 2016, and Starks was indicted on multiple charges, including felony murder, homicide by vehicle, serious injury by vehicle, and driving under the influence. During the trial, the court directed a verdict for Starks on one count, and the jury found him guilty on the remaining counts. Starks was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder and received concurrent sentences for other charges.Starks filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court. His subsequent appeals were dismissed as untimely. However, a habeas court later granted his petition to pursue a direct appeal. Starks argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present medical evidence that could support a defense theory that he was unconscious due to a medical condition rather than intoxication.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that Starks's trial counsel made a strategic decision to focus on evidence of intoxication rather than a medical condition, which was not objectively unreasonable. The court held that Starks failed to show that his counsel's performance was deficient or that it prejudiced his defense. Therefore, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected.The State raised two sentencing issues on appeal, arguing that the trial court improperly merged the homicide by vehicle convictions and that sentences for other offenses should not have been served concurrently with the felony murder sentence. The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the trial court properly merged the homicide by vehicle convictions under the rule that only one conviction and sentence may be imposed for the killing of a single victim. Additionally, the court held that the trial court had discretion to run sentences concurrently with the felony murder sentence. The judgment was affirmed. View "STARKS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, Supreme Court of Georgia
GUDE v. THE STATE
DeRon Edrias Gude was convicted of felony murder and other charges related to the shooting death of Nyyokokie Hendley. On October 11, 2016, Gude called 911 to report a shooting at his home, claiming it was an accident during a fight. Police found Hendley dead from a gunshot wound to the head, with a 9-millimeter handgun near her feet and marijuana in an unlocked safe. Gude was indicted on multiple charges, including malice murder and felony murder. At trial, Gude testified that Hendley had threatened him and pointed a gun at him, leading him to shoot her in self-defense. The jury found Gude guilty of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault and other charges.The DeKalb County Superior Court granted Gude’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the marijuana charge, and the jury found him not guilty of malice murder but guilty on the remaining counts. Gude was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, plus five years for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Gude’s motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and addressed Gude’s claims of plain error in the jury charge on aggravated assault and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court assumed, without deciding, that the trial court committed an obvious error in the jury instruction but found that Gude failed to show the error likely affected the trial's outcome. The court noted that the jury was properly instructed on the burden of proof and provided with a copy of the indictment. Additionally, Gude’s defense was self-defense, and the jury’s verdict indicated they found he intended to shoot Hendley. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that Gude did not demonstrate plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel. View "GUDE v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
POUNDS v. THE STATE
William C. Pounds III was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Kendra Jackson. The incident occurred on June 12, 2015, and Pounds was indicted later that year. During the trial, evidence showed that Pounds had a tumultuous relationship with Jackson and was also engaged to another woman, Vicinda Crawford. On the day of the incident, Pounds called 9-1-1, claiming Jackson had committed suicide. However, conflicting accounts from Pounds and expert testimony suggested otherwise, leading to his conviction.Initially, the trial court sentenced Pounds to life in prison without parole for malice murder, merging the aggravated assault count and vacating the felony murder count by law. Pounds filed an untimely motion for a new trial, which was denied. The trial court later granted an out-of-time appeal, but the appeal was dismissed because the motion for a new trial was still pending. After further proceedings, the trial court denied the motion for a new trial on the merits, allowing the appeal to proceed.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the conviction. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction for malice murder. The court also addressed several claims by Pounds, including alleged evidentiary errors and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that any errors in admitting certain testimonies were harmless and did not affect the verdict. Additionally, the court found that Pounds's trial counsel did not perform deficiently by not objecting to a juror who knew Jackson's stepmother, as the juror affirmed her ability to remain impartial.Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the proceedings. View "POUNDS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, Supreme Court of Georgia
Miller v. State
Bryan Miller was convicted by a jury of the malice murder of his wife, Gracie Miller, and the aggravated assault of her niece, Shamone Morris, after shooting them multiple times. The crimes occurred on May 18, 2021, and Miller was indicted on several counts, including malice murder and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to life without parole for the malice murder and an additional 30 years for other charges. Miller filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.Miller appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of two prior incidents involving his wife under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b). He claimed that the evidence was irrelevant due to his self-defense claim, that a plea of nolo contendere was insufficient to prove his involvement in one incident, and that the court failed to rule on the admissibility of the other acts concerning the assault on Morris.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that the prior incidents were relevant to show motive and the nature of the relationship between Miller and Gracie, which was pertinent to countering Miller's self-defense claim. The court also determined that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Additionally, the court held that there was sufficient proof for a jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Miller committed the prior acts. The court also concluded that any error in admitting the evidence concerning the assault on Morris did not affect Miller's substantial rights, given the strong evidence against him and the limiting instructions provided to the jury. View "Miller v. State" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, Supreme Court of Georgia
BAKER v. THE STATE
Prentice Baker and Verlaine Laguerre were convicted of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony for the shooting death of Matthew Hardeman. The evidence showed that Hardeman and Laguerre had a fistfight earlier in the day, which Hardeman won. Later, Laguerre returned with Baker and others to Hardeman’s neighborhood, where they encountered Hardeman and shot him multiple times, resulting in his death.A Fulton County grand jury indicted Baker and Laguerre on multiple counts, including malice murder and firearm possession. Their first trial ended in a mistrial, but a second joint trial in April 2018 resulted in guilty verdicts on all counts. Both defendants were sentenced to life in prison for malice murder and an additional five years for firearm possession. Their motions for a new trial were denied by the trial court in March 2022, leading to their appeals.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found no plain error in the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on accomplice corroboration, as the evidence did not clearly indicate that Ellis was an accomplice. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Baker’s convictions, including Ellis’s identification of Baker as one of the shooters. Laguerre’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected because his counsel’s decision not to object to certain testimony was deemed a reasonable strategic choice. Finally, the court dismissed Laguerre’s claim of cumulative error due to the lack of any established errors. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions and sentences of both Baker and Laguerre. View "BAKER v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, Supreme Court of Georgia
CAMPBELL v. THE STATE
In November 2018, four defendants were convicted of various crimes related to two separate incidents. Jordan Campbell and Roderick Parrish were convicted of felony murder and other charges related to the death of Rebecca Foley in January 2013. Shacqeal Sanders and Henry Speaks were convicted of malice murder and other charges related to the death of James Pastures and the aggravated assault of Maurice Harris in January 2015. All four were also convicted of gang-related charges.The case was initially tried in October 2018, but a mistrial was declared after a juror was threatened. The retrial took place from October to November 2018. The jury found Campbell and Parrish guilty on all counts except malice murder and related gang charges. Sanders was found guilty on all counts except criminal attempt to commit a felony and two gang violations. Speaks was found guilty on all counts except criminal attempt to commit a felony, one count of aggravated assault, two counts of firearm possession during a felony, and three gang counts. The trial court sentenced each defendant to life without parole plus additional years for other counts.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever the trials of the defendants and counts related to the two murders. The court also found that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of juror intimidation and in giving a deliberate ignorance instruction, but these errors were deemed harmless. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court did not err in disqualifying Sanders’s counsel or in its jury instructions. The cumulative effect of the errors did not affect the jury’s verdicts. View "CAMPBELL v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, Supreme Court of Georgia
MOORE v. WHITE
Alfred Moore was convicted in 2016 of first-degree burglary and other crimes, resulting in a total sentence of 45 years. On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. Moore then filed a habeas corpus petition, later amended, arguing that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the first-degree burglary count in the indictment. Moore contended that the indictment did not allege an essential element of first-degree burglary, specifically that he entered a "dwelling house" or a building "designed for use as [a] dwelling."The habeas court denied Moore's petition, concluding that the indictment was sufficient because it referenced the first-degree burglary statute. Moore appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which granted his application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal, focusing on whether the habeas court erred in its ruling.The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the indictment failed to allege all essential elements of first-degree burglary, as it only mentioned that Moore entered a "business." The court determined that trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a special demurrer to challenge the indictment. This failure was not a reasonable trial strategy, and it was reasonably probable that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the indictment had been challenged. The court also found that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising this issue on appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the habeas court's denial of relief regarding Moore's first-degree burglary conviction and remanded the case with directions to vacate that conviction and grant appropriate relief. View "MOORE v. WHITE" on Justia Law
Espinosa v. State
Andy Espinosa pleaded guilty to the malice murder of Zachary Mejia and other related offenses. Espinosa was living with his girlfriend and her four children, including Zachary. On December 8, 2020, Espinosa and Zachary had a physical altercation, which left Espinosa feeling humiliated. The next day, Espinosa searched online about what it feels like to murder someone. Later that day, he returned home, grabbed a knife, and fatally stabbed Zachary. Espinosa called 9-1-1 and was arrested. He later claimed he was overtaken by a "demon" during the stabbing.Espinosa was indicted by a Chattooga County grand jury and pleaded guilty to all counts without a sentencing recommendation from the State. The trial court sentenced him to life without parole for malice murder, a consecutive five-year term for possession of a knife during the commission of a felony, and a concurrent 12-month term for cruelty to children in the third degree. Espinosa filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not advising him of an insanity defense.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. Espinosa claimed his plea counsel was ineffective for not investigating his mental state and advising him of a potential insanity defense. Plea counsel testified that he did not see a viable defense and believed a plea was in Espinosa's best interest. The court found that counsel's performance was not deficient, as his strategic decisions were based on his professional judgment and experience. The court also noted that Espinosa did not provide evidence of past mental health issues or expert testimony supporting an insanity defense.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Espinosa's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court held that Espinosa failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient. View "Espinosa v. State" on Justia Law
WIPFEL v. THE STATE
In January 2015, Kristian Wipfel, along with Dennis Eason, Jr., Tevin Sams, Antonio Garvin, and Jeremy Jackson, confronted Dejad Williams over a drug dispute. The confrontation led to a shooting at Williams's apartment, resulting in the death of eight-year-old Jai’mel Anderson. Wipfel was indicted for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, making terroristic threats, and firearm possession during a felony. At trial, Garvin and Jackson testified against Wipfel, Eason, and Sams. The jury found Wipfel guilty of all charges except making terroristic threats.The trial court sentenced Wipfel to life without parole for malice murder, 20 years for aggravated assault, and consecutive five-year terms for the firearm offenses. Wipfel's motion for a new trial was denied, and his subsequent appeal was dismissed due to procedural issues. After rectifying the notification issue, Wipfel filed a timely appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Wipfel's claim that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser offense of malice murder. Wipfel argued that his actions amounted to reckless conduct rather than malice murder. The court applied the plain error review standard, which requires showing that the error was clear, affected the trial's outcome, and impacted the fairness of the proceedings.The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to give the involuntary manslaughter instruction sua sponte, as Wipfel did not request it. The court reaffirmed the rule from State v. Stonaker, which states that a trial court's failure to instruct on a lesser offense without a request is not error. Consequently, Wipfel's claim of plain error failed, and the court affirmed his conviction. View "WIPFEL v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, Supreme Court of Georgia
HARRIS v. THE STATE
Denarius Harris was convicted of felony murder and a firearm charge in connection with the shooting death of Dallas Spruill. Harris claimed he acted in self-defense, but the jury rejected this claim. The incident occurred when Spruill, along with Christian Boss and Pamela Blue, was selling TVs around Atlanta. They met Harris at an apartment complex, where a confrontation ensued, resulting in Harris shooting Spruill. Witnesses provided differing accounts of the events, but all agreed that Harris shot Spruill.The Fulton County grand jury indicted Harris on multiple charges, including malice murder and felony murder. The jury found him guilty of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, but acquitted him of other charges. Harris was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder and an additional five years for the firearm charge. His motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Harris's appeal, focusing on his claims regarding the trial court's jury instructions on self-defense. Harris argued that the instructions were erroneous and could have misled the jury. However, the Supreme Court found that the instructions were correct statements of the law and followed the pattern jury instructions. The court held that the instructions did not confuse the jury as Harris claimed and affirmed his convictions and sentence. The court also rejected Harris's argument that the instructions placed undue emphasis on the use of deadly force, finding no error in the trial court's explanation of self-defense. Thus, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the judgment. View "HARRIS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, Supreme Court of Georgia