Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of the aggravated assault of the victim and the kidnapping of her six-year-old and 18-month-old daughters. Defendant appealed. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all three counts of kidnapping; the court rejected defendant's claim that the three kidnapping convictions should have been merged into the aggravated assault convictions, or vice versa, or that two of the kidnapping convictions should have been merged into the other kidnapping conviction; and defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant challenged his convictions of numerous crimes, including malice murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, committed at two different convenience stores in Athens, Georgia, on the same night. The court held that the trial court did not err by permitting the State to introduce evidence of similar transactions; by denying his motion for a change of venue; by permitting a witness's preliminary hearing testimony to be read to the jury at trial; and by qualifying a sketch artist as an expert. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of malice murder, felony murder predicated on aggravated sodomy, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, and aggravated sodomy, all with regard to the murder of the victim. Defendant appealed. The court held that the trial court committed no error by explaining the basis of an evidentiary ruling; by limiting defendant's cross-examination of a detective regarding a witness; by admitting into evidence custodial statements made by defendant; by allowing the State to ask him to physically reenact the manner in which he overpowered two other victims when he raped them; by allowing the State to question him regarding a prior domestic dispute with his wife; by allowing the State to impeach him with a prior inconsistent statement; by allowing the State to cross-examine him about his testimony regarding the circumstances of the similar transaction rapes; by charging the jury; and by denying defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted for murdering his wife and two-year-old son "execution style" by gunshots to the back of the head. Defendant's wife, after waking up from a seven-week coma, left for Vietnam, her family's native country. In Phan I, the court vacated a prior trial court order and remanded the case for a more comprehensive analysis as to defendant's claim of a constitutional speedy trial violation, grounded in his assertion of a "systematic breakdown" in the public defender system. The trial court complied with this directive and defendant subsequently appealed the resulting order in which the trial court denied defendant's speedy trial claim and ordered the replacement of his appointed private attorneys with salaried counsel from the capital defender's division of the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council (GPDSC). The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds where the trial court, inter alia, properly weighed the length of the delay against the State and properly weighed defendant's delay in asserting his speedy trial right heavily against the defense. The court also held that the trial court acted within its discretion in replacing defendant's counsel in consideration of the "countervailing considerations" that existed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant entered a non-negotiated plea to three counts of aggravated assault, two counts of arson, two counts of aggravated stalking, and one count each of burglary, criminal damage to property, disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, obstruction of an officer, and theft by taking. The court granted defendant's application for certificate of probably cause to appeal. The record showed and the State conceded that defendant raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's withdrawal of defendant's notice of appeal and counsel's failure to argue the appropriate legal standard for setting restitution. The habeas court, however, failed to address these claims in its order denying relief. Accordingly, the order of the habeas court was vacated and the case remanded for the habeas court to consider these claims.

Defendant was convicted of malice murder of one victim, the aggravated assaults and false imprisonments of two other victims, possession of a knife during the commission of a crime, and concealing a death. Defendant appealed the trial court's denial of his amended motion for a new trial following a remand. The court held that the conviction and sentence for aggravated assault of the murder victim must be vacated and the case remanded for re-sentencing where defendant's conviction for aggravated assault merged into the conviction for malice murder. The court also held that the trial court did not err when it entered judgment on the jury's verdicts where there was evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found that defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the crime. The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting certain photographs or in its instructions to the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanding with direction.

Defendant challenged his convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of the victim. On appeal, defendant contended that trial counsel was deficient in failing to seek suppression of multiple eyewitness identifications of him made during photo lineups; trial counsel was not adequately prepared for trial based on an alleged failure to properly object when the State violated the discovery statute by disclosing 47 witnesses less than 10 days before trial; trial counsel should have subpoenaed a certain witness, whom defendant alleged was the real shooter, to testify for the defense at trial; trial counsel was ineffective in raising his bad character; and the trial court erred by preventing him from impeaching a certain witness for the prosecution. The court rejected defendant's claims. However, the court held that, although not enumerated as an error, the felony murder conviction was vacated by operation of law and the firearm possession sentence far exceeded the statutory minimum. Accordingly, defendant's sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

The warden appealed from the grant of defendant's application for writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court granted the writ after finding that defendant's appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance. The court held that it could not be said that appellate counsel's decision not to assert an illegal search of defendant's residence on the basis urged was an unreasonable one which no competent attorney in the same situation would have made. Moreover, defendant could hardly satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland standard. Further, defendant did not demonstrate that counsel's failure to raise the cited issues was professionally deficient. Consequently, it was error for the habeas court to grant the writ and the judgment was reversed.

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for felony murder while in the commission of arson in connection with the death of the victim. On appeal, defendant claimed that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant contended that trial counsel failed to perform as a competent attorney in preparing for trial, in fully advocating on his behalf, and in failing to take certain actions and ignoring certain exculpatory evidence pertaining to his defense which comprised of his right to counsel under Strickland v. Washington. The court held that defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of trial counsel in any of the manners claimed and his assertion that trial counsel's cumulative errors deprived him of a fair trial had no merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appealed his conviction for malice murder, as well as aggravated assault, armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court agreed with defendant's contention that the preprinted verdict form used erroneously instructed the jury that in order to find him not guilty of the crimes charged, the jury had to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that defendant must be awarded a new trial pursuant to State v. Kelly. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment.