Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The DeKalb County district attorney brought a declaratory judgment action against the county's magistrate judges seeking guidance regarding a dispute on the proper evidentiary standards for establishing probable cause at preliminary hearings. The trial court issued a declaratory judgment in the district attorney's favor, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari to consider whether declaratory judgment was an appropriate remedy for challenging evidentiary policies or practices at preliminary hearings. Because this dispute was not a civil case that presented a justiciable controversy and declaratory relief would not provide any more guidance or certainty than current case law, the Court concluded that declaratory relief was not an appropriate remedy. Accordingly, the Court reversed. View "Leitch v. Flemming" on Justia Law

The superior court denied the writ of mandamus in this case where a taxpayer requested that a school district to return "excess proceeds" collected pursuant to an educational sales and use tax approved by referendum. In 2001, voters in the Clarke County School District approved a one percent educational sales and use tax (ELOST) for a period of five years beginning immediately upon the expiration of an ELOST that had been approved in 1997. The purpose of the referendum was to provide funds to pay the cost of specified, authorized projects totaling $87,849,000. The total amount of taxes collected pursuant to the 2001 ELOST was $93,413,789, which was $5,564,789 more than the amount of taxes the school district intended to collect, but less than the amount the school district actually spent on the authorized projects. In 2006, voters again approved a one percent ELOST for an additional five years. In spite of these referendums and taxes, as of September 1, 2012, the school district had debt totaling at least $10,855,000. In denying the writ, the superior court found, inter alia, appellant did not show a clear legal right to relief because the school district did not violate the "excess proceeds" provision. The Supreme Court agreed with the superior court and affirmed the lower court's ruling. View "Marsh v. Clarke County Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Defendant Marquez Powell was tried by a Fulton County jury and convicted of the murder of Shah Walton, as well as possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Defendant appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that the prosecuting attorney made improper and prejudicial remarks in her closing argument, and that the court below impermissibly allowed the State to constructively amend the indictment at trial. Upon its review of the briefs and the record, the Supreme Court found no reversible error, and affirmed. View "Powell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant Kelvin Simmons was convicted for the malice murder of Sheila Easley in February 2002. Following the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial, Defendant appealed. He contended the evidence was insufficient to convict him, the trial court committed procedural errors, the trial court erred in instructing the jury, and trial counsel was ineffective. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Simmons v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Sosa filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, contending that his attorney was ineffective for failing to advise him that his guilty plea would subject him to removal or deportation. The State moved to dismiss the petition as untimely. The habeas court denied the motion and granted habeas relief on the ground that Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at his plea hearing in 2002. However after its review, the Supreme Court concluded that Defendant's habeas petition was untimely under the four-year statute of limitations in OCGA 9-14-42, and reversed. View "Georgia v. Sosa" on Justia Law

Appellant Zyderrious Platt was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, feticide, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm for the October 2009 shooting death of his pregnant wife Jelani Platt. Appellant contended on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. Finding the evidence sufficient to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Platt v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant Dwight Simmons appealed his conviction for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, theft by taking, possession of a firearm during commission of a crime, and possession of a knife during commission of a crime, contending, among other things, that the trial court made numerous evidentiary errors and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding that none of the alleged errors Defendant raised on appeal had merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Simmons v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Travis Wilcher was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and related crimes in connection with the 2007 shooting death of Tollie Mitchell. Appellant appealed the denial of his motion for new trial, asserting insufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary error, and error in the jury charge. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wilcher v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Christopher Young was tried and convicted with his codefendant, Patrick Satterfield, for the 2008 felony murder and armed robbery of Richard Boynton, Sr., the burglary of the Boynton home, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Young, who was also convicted of misdemeanor possession of marijuana, appealed the judgment entered on the convictions. Specifically, Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence admitted at trial to convict him. Furthermore, he contended the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to re-open its case and present testimony of two witnesses after it had rested, and in denying his motion in limine to redact from the testimony of the victim's neighbor all references to Appellant. Finding no abuse of discretion, and that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed with respect to those issues. However, because Appellant's burglary conviction served as the predicate felony for the felony murder conviction, the Court held it was error to sentence appellant for both felony murder and burglary. Accordingly, the Court vacated the separate judgment of conviction and sentence for burglary, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Young v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Johnny Johnson appealed his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer, both in connection with the death of Deandre Phillips. Finding no merit to the alleged errors Johnson raised on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law