Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Bruce Wayne Hargrove was convicted of malice murder in connection with the 1999 shooting death of Antonio Jamel Jordan and was sentenced to life imprisonment. His motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed. On appeal, appellant claimed, inter alia, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, that the State failed to prove venue, and that his due process rights were violated by the 12-year delay between his conviction and appeal. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hargrove v. Georgia" on Justia Law

More than five years after he was arrested, John Johnson still had not been brought to trial, so he moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The trial court granted his motion, and the State appealed. Although the Supreme Court held in prior cases that trial courts confronted with similar circumstances did not abuse their discretion in finding no denial of the right to a speedy trial, it never held that a trial court presented with such circumstances always must find no denial of the right. And for that reason, the Court remanded this case for the trial court to "correctly apply the pertinent legal principles and to consider again whether Johnson was denied his right to a speedy trial." View "Georgia v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Thomas Antonio Brown was tried by a jury and convicted of the murder of Bon Joshwa Albright, as well as on four counts of aggravated assault and five counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Brown appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that the court below erred when it denied his "Batson" objection to the way in which the State exercised its peremptory strikes in the selection of the jury, and that the court erred when it sustained an objection to the closing argument offered by his lawyer. Upon its review of the briefs and the record, the Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following the denial of his motion for new trial, as amended, Christopher Brown appealed his convictions for malice murder and armed robbery in connection with the fatal shooting of Robert Lovelace. Brown challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt, the admission of certain evidence at trial, and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Finding the challenges to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Michael Reginald McLean appealed his conviction for felony murder in connection with the shooting death of Perry Phillips. McLean contended multiple issues at trial constituted error for which he petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn. Finding these contentions to be largely meritless, the Supreme Court affirmed McLean's conviction. View "McLean v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Tammy Poole was convicted in April 2007 for the malice murder of her husband Robert Michael Poole, possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony and while a convicted felon, simple battery/family violence, and making a false statement. After reviewing her contentions of ineffective assistance of counsel, improper jury instructions, and erroneous evidentiary rulings, the Supreme Court affirmed her conviction. View "Poole v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Tamarkus Lekeith Wright was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery and burglary in connection with the robbing and shooting of Joseph Ray. On appeal Wright contended that his trial counsel was ineffective and that the trial court erred in allowing improper testimony at trial. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wright v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Paul Franklin Blevins was tried by a jury and convicted of the murder of Danny Jones, armed robbery, arson in the first degree, and several misdemeanor traffic offenses. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Blevins appealed, contending only that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his felony convictions. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed Blevins' convictions. View "Blevins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In May 1999, a jury found Derrick Brown guilty of kidnapping with bodily injury, aggravated assault upon a person 65 years or older, robbery by force, and burglary in connection with the beating and robbing of Margaret Logan. Brown’s convictions were upheld on appeal. In December 2008, Brown sought habeas relief based on the Supreme Court’s then-controlling decision in "Garza v. State," (670 SE2d 73)(2008)), which established new factors for assessing the asportation element as required for kidnapping. Brown also sought habeas relief based on "Brodes v. State," (614 SE2d 766)(2005)), alleging error in the jury instructions for the reliability of Logan’s identification. Analyzing the Garza factors, the habeas court granted relief and set aside the conviction and sentence for kidnapping. The habeas court denied relief on Brodes grounds, finding that Brodes announced a new procedural rule that did not apply retroactively. The warden appealed the habeas court’s ruling on the Garza issue, and Brown appealed the habeas court’s ruling on the Brodes issue. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the habeas court in the warden's appeal, and affirmed the lower court in Brown's appeal on the Brodes issue. View "Chatman v. Brown" on Justia Law

Appellant Carl Higdon was charged with a total of eight criminal offenses in three accusations filed in the Catoosa County Superior Court and one indictment returned in the Walker County Superior Court, each of which was assigned its own case number. On November 23, 2010, Appellant entered guilty pleas to all four charging instruments during a hearing in the Catoosa County Superior Court, and he asked the trial court to sentence him as a first offender as to all eight crimes in the four charging instruments. The trial court ruled that it had no authority to treat Appellant as a first offender on all eight crimes, because he was pleading to different offenses separated by time and place and charged in separate indictments and accusations. Although the court offered Appellant first offender status on the crime or crimes alleged in any one of the charging instruments, he declined the offer as providing him no benefit. The trial court then entered four separate sentences and judgments, three in Catoosa County Superior Court and one in Walker County Superior Court. Appellant filed four separate appeals in the four cases, which the Court of Appeals resolved in a single opinion, affirming the trial court’s ruling on the first offender issue. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals properly construed the last sentence of the "First Offender Statute." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the trial court did not err in declining to grant Appellant first offender treatment on all the crimes in the four separate charging instruments to which he pleaded guilty. View "Higdon v. Georgia" on Justia Law