Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted Stacey O. Lanham of the stabbing death of Gerald Mutcherson in connection with a drug deal. At trial, Lanham admitted killing Mutcherson, but claimed it was in self defense. On appeal, Lanham contended that the State failed to establish venue and the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the burden of proof for venue. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Lanham v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant Donavon Shane Leger appealed his convictions for malice murder and aggravated battery in connection with the death of his estranged wife, Tracy Leger. He contended that in three instances the State violated the requirements of the reciprocal discovery rules and that this should have resulted in the exclusion of the evidence at issue. Finding Defendant's arguments of error to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Leger v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2000, appellant David Leverette entered guilty pleas to charges arising from the malice murder of his wife and was sentenced to life imprisonment plus several terms of years to be served concurrently with each other and with the life sentence. In June 2011, appellant filed a motion for out-of-time appeal, which the trial court denied after holding a hearing. Appellant appealed the denial of that motion. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion in denying Appellant's motion, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "Leverette v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Tinos Santana McBride was found guilty of malice murder and various other offenses in connection with the shooting death of Jessie Strickland. On appeal, McBride contended that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress and by prohibiting him from introducing certain evidence at trial. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McBride v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this appeal to determine whether 9 USC 16 (a) (1) (B) of the Federal Arbitration Act (the "FAA"), which grants federal litigants the right to directly appeal a trial court's order refusing to compel arbitration, preempted OCGA 5-6-34 (b), a statute which requires parties seeking to appeal from such an order in state courts to follow interlocutory appeal procedures. Because the Court concluded section 5-6-34 (b) is a procedural statute not preempted by section 16 (a) (1) (B), the Court of Appeals' order dismissing the direct appeal filed in this case was affirmed. View "American General Financial Services v. Jape" on Justia Law

In 1993, a jury found Appellant Joseph Barnes guilty of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, and armed robbery and recommended a death sentence. The trial court sentenced Barnes to death for the murder and also imposed a consecutive life sentence for the armed robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions but vacated the death sentence and remanded the case back to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing based on its conclusion that the trial court had improperly restricted the scope of mitigating evidence presented at the sentencing phase of Appellant's trial. On remand, Appellant and the State entered into a sentencing agreement under which Appellant accepted a sentence of life without parole and the State agreed to withdraw its notice of intent to seek the death penalty. The trial court accepted the agreement at a hearing and sentenced Barnes to life without parole on his malice murder conviction. In 2011, proceeding pro se, Appellant filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal. He appealed following the denial of his motion. Because Appellant challenged the validity of the sentencing agreement which could have been resolved against him on the record, the trial court did not err in denying his motion for an out-of-time appeal. View "Barnes v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Robert Clark filed a petition against Chief Justice Carol W. Hunstein, seeking a writ of mandamus to order Chief Justice Hunstein to rule on his application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal his habeas corpus case, which was pending with the Supreme Court. The Attorney General moved to dismiss the mandamus petition on the ground that it should have been filed in superior court. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that as the highest court in the state, the writ of mandamus may not be issued against the Court or its Justices, and it dismissed Clark's original mandamus petition on that ground. View "Clark v. Hunstein" on Justia Law

Kurt A. Floyd, Sr. and Livia M. Floyd were divorced in 2008. The decree incorporated the settlement of the parties, in which Kurt and Livia agreed that Kurt would retain title to, and possession of, the marital residence. The decree and incorporated settlement required Kurt to refinance the existing mortgage on the marital residence and to use the proceeds to pay Livia for her share of the equity. If Kurt were unwilling or unable to refinance the marital residence, the decree and incorporated settlement required him, within 90 days of the entry of the decree, to list the marital residence for sale at its fair market value or a price mutually agreeable to the parties. On cross-motions for contempt, the court below found that Kurt violated the terms of the decree in several respects, including by failing to refinance or list the marital residence, and it held Kurt in contempt of the decree. The court directed Kurt to purge his contempt with respect to the marital residence by making a quitclaim deed for the residence in favor of Livia. Kurt appealed the contempt order, as well as the denial of his cross-motion for contempt. Upon review of the decree and incorporated settlement, in addition to the trial court record, the Supreme Court reversed the contempt order to the extent that it required Kurt to execute a quitclaim deed in favor of Livia, but it otherwise was affirmed. View "Floyd v. Floyd" on Justia Law

Appellant Devin Anthony Grell was convicted of the felony murder of Donny Edouard, with the aggravated assault of Edouard as the underlying felony. He was also convicted of burglary of the Edouard home, two counts of aggravated assault of Brianna Morgan, and five counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, with each of the possession counts using as its predicate felony a different one of the five felonies with which Appellant was charged. He appealed the judgment of conviction, contending that he was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court improperly excluded the testimony of a defense witness and improperly instructed the deliberating jury in response to a question the jury raised. After reviewing the appellate record, the Supreme Court affirmed six of the nine convictions and vacated two of the convictions for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and one of the aggravated assault convictions in which Morgan was the victim. View "Grell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In December 2005, Appellant Jamerson Mangrum was found guilty of numerous crimes related to the death of 15-year-old Katie Hamlin in July 2002, including three counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated child molestation, and one count each of rape, abandoning a dead body, concealing a death, and tampering with evidence. After his motion for new trial was denied, Appellant obtained new counsel and appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging numerous grounds for reversal. In its first review of this case, the Court rejected all of his arguments except for his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which was remanded to the trial court for a hearing. In 2011, the trial court held a hearing on the ineffective assistance claim. The only witness at the hearing was Appellant's trial counsel, Jimmy Berry. At the hearing, Appellant's new counsel attempted to show that Berry unreasonably failed to support his theory that the victim's medications caused her to have a seizure and asphyxiate and to investigate the possibility that her failure to take her medications caused her death. However, new counsel did not offer any of the victim's medical records or present any expert medical testimony at the hearing. The the trial court denied Appellant's ineffective assistance claim. He appealed that ruling. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Appellant was required to offer more than "mere speculation" that the victim's medical records and expert testimony would have bolstered his defense at trial for his ineffectiveness claim. He failed to do so, offering no evidence at the hearing as to the victim's medical records or how their introduction or the introduction of testimony about them would have changed the outcome of his trial. Appellant therefore failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court correctly denied his claim.