Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Rafael Carter appealed the trial court’s dismissal of his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea stemming from the murder of Terrance Fields during an armed robbery. The January 2016 term of court in which Carter entered his guilty plea expired on Friday, March 4, 2016, and a new term of court commenced on Monday, March 7, 2016. So both his March 11, 2016 and his October 11, 2021 motions to withdraw were filed after the expiration of the term of court in which he entered his plea. Nonetheless, Carter maintains that his convictions and sentences are void and illegal due to merger errors, thus providing the trial court with jurisdiction to permit the withdrawal of his guilty plea. The Georgia Supreme Court found Carter’s sentence was not void because his felony murder convictions were vacated by operation of law despite the trial court’s purported merger of those counts; the trial court has properly merged Carter’s conviction for the aggravated assault of Fields (Count 9) into his malice murder conviction (Count 1); no other merger error appeared; and each sentence imposed was within the range that the law allows. Therefore, the Court found the trial court properly dismissed Carter's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Carter v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Kentavous Wilkerson challenged his convictions for felony murder and other crimes in connection with the 2017 shooting death of Bradley Green and the non-fatal shooting of Rodney Greene. On appeal, Appellant contended: (1) the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motions for mistrial that he made following the prosecutor’s statements to the jury indicating that Appellant had been in jail for more than two years before trial. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wilkerson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Tarus Green was convicted of felony murder in connection with the 2012 shooting death of Gregory Bivin. On appeal, Green argued: (1) the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by allowing the jury during deliberations to review cell phone records that were admitted as evidence but were neither published nor explained to the jury during the trial; and (3) the trial court erred in allowing admission of a witness’s alleged prior inconsistent statement without first affording the witness the opportunity to explain or deny the substance of the statement pursuant to OCGA § 24-6-613 (b). The Georgia Supreme Court found each of these claims failed and affirmed Green's conviction. View "Green v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After the Georgia Board of Public Safety (“the Board”) denied Rick Kuhlman’s application for relief from the prohibition on the possession of firearms by convicted felons in OCGA § 16-11-131, Kuhlman sued the State of Georgia seeking a declaratory judgment “that he qualifies for relief” from that prohibition pursuant to subsection (d) of the statute. His complaint also included claims that the statute, as applied to him, violated his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section I, Paragraph VIII of the Georgia Constitution of 1983. The superior court granted summary judgment to the State on all claims. In its order, the court ruled that Kuhlman’s statutory claim was barred by sovereign immunity, that he could not maintain his federal constitutional claim, and that OCGA § 16-11-131 did not violate the state constitution. Nevertheless, the superior court went on to rule in the alternative on the merits of Kuhlman’s statutory claim, but it failed to reach the merits of his federal constitutional claim. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the portion of the superior court’s judgment that was based on sovereign immunity, affirmed the court’s alternative ruling on the merits of Kuhlman’s statutory claim, vacated the portion of the judgment that related to Kuhlman’s constitutional claims, and remanded the case to the superior court for reconsideration of Kuhlman’s constitutional claims. View "Kuhlman v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Kaylynn Ruthenberg was convicted of malice murder and other crimes arising from the shooting death of James Jones and the robbery of Samuel Gallardo. Appellant contended the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his three prior misdemeanor convictions for simple battery under OCGA § 24- 4-418 and that the admission of this evidence violated OCGA § 24- 4-403. Because Appellant failed to carry his burden to show plain error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ruthenberg v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Diontye Scott was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2017 shooting death of Antonio Veal. On appeal, Scott contended his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to: (1) request an instruction limiting the jury’s consideration of the stipulations to Scott’s prior felony convictions as proof of his status as a convicted felon; (2) request an instruction limiting the jury’s consideration of Scott’s prior felony convictions to only impeachment; and (3) object to the State’s closing argument, which allegedly misstated the burden of proof. He also argued (4) these errors, taken together, deprived him of a fair trial. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded Scott’s ineffective-assistance claims had no merit. "Even assuming that his counsel erred by failing to object to the State’s closing argument, Scott failed to show more than one error, so we need not assess any cumulative prejudice. So we affirm his convictions." View "Scott v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Robert Annunziata was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes in connection with a 2019 shooting that took place outside of a nightclub that resulted in the death of John Price and injuries to Washington Young and Andrew Darling. On appeal, Appellant contended the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Annunziata v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Ricardo Beltran-Gonzales appealed his conviction for malice murder in connection with a 2013 stabbing at Hays State Prison, which resulted in the death of fellow inmate Nathaniel Reynolds. On appeal, Appellant contended the trial court abused its discretion in recharging the jury on malice murder without also recharging the jury on Appellant’s defenses. Appellant also argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State jointly trying Appellant with another inmate, Leonardo Ramos Rodrigues, who was separately charged with committing the same fatal stabbing. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Beltran-Gonzales v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Joshua DeMuro was convicted by jury of murder in the 2018 shooting death of Kevin Gilman. DeMuro challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and contended the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fatal shooting was not justified. DeMuro also argued the trial court gave incomplete jury instructions on witness credibility, impeachment, and justification and that the trial court erred in refusing to send written jury instructions out with the jury. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "DeMuro v. Georgia" on Justia Law

James Randolph was convicted by jury of malice murder, armed robbery, and other crimes in connection with the 2000 armed robbery of Carlos Torres and Dennis Dixon and the shooting death of Rodney Castlin. On appeal, Randolph argued the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the State failed to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of two other acts under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b). Because the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the accomplice’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence admitted at trial, that the trial court did not err in admitting one prior incident of armed robbery, and that any error in admitting the other incident (a home burglary) was harmless, the judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "Randolph v. Georgia" on Justia Law