Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Scott v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-04-19 · cited 3×
In Scott v. State, Dudley Scott III appealed the Superior Court of Laurens County’s denial of his motion to withdraw his 2008 guilty plea to armed robbery, arguing that the sentence failed to give him credit for time spent in jail on unrelated Baldwin County charges while the Laurens County case was pending. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. It held that Scott had entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily after being informed he would receive no credit for that period, and it rejected his statutory claim because OCGA § 17-10-11(a) applies only to confinement that would not have occurred but for the charges resulting in the sentence at issue; Scott would have remained incarcerated on the Baldwin County matters regardless. The court therefore found no error in denying the motion to withdraw the plea.
criminal lawprocedure
Jones v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-04-06 · cited 15×
In Jones v. State, Robert Lee Jones was convicted by a Chatham County jury of impersonating a police officer, burglary, and armed robbery arising from an armed robbery at a supermarket and a related home invasion nearby on May 31, 2008; the evidence included witness identifications, items recovered from the scene and a white SUV linked to Jones (such as a badge holder, bandana, BB pistol, and receipt), and testimony from a co-participant. Jones appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, claiming insufficient evidence (particularly the circumstantial nature of much of the proof), error in denying his motion to sever his trial from a co-defendant’s, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call certain witnesses. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, allowed a rational jury to find the elements of each crime beyond a reasonable doubt and that the circumstantial evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence other than guilt. The court further found no abuse of discretion in the denial of severance and that Jones failed to demonstrate the required prejudice from counsel’s performance, including by not proffering what the uncalled witnesses would have said.
criminal lawprocedure
Williamson v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-04-06 · cited 16×
In Williamson v. State, a Walker County jury convicted Jamie Williamson of multiple sexual offenses, including rape, statutory rape, aggravated sodomy, child molestation, and aggravated child molestation, against two minor victims, L.P. and B.E., based on acts occurring in 2004–2005 and 2007–2008. Williamson appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, claiming the evidence was insufficient because the victims’ testimony lacked corroboration, was inconsistent, and was unsupported by physical evidence in one case, and that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial after an investigator mentioned that he had not made a statement. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the victims’ testimony, combined with outcry witnesses, forensic interview recordings, and limited physical findings for one victim, provided sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. On the mistrial issue, the court found no abuse of discretion, as any reference to Williamson’s silence was not prejudicial in context, did not target his defense, and was promptly addressed by a curative jury instruction.
criminal lawprocedure
Bradberry v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-04-06 · cited 14×
Eddie Bradberry appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion seeking forensic testing of a semen sample for condom lubricants (which he claimed would prove the victim framed him for rape) and a related motion for sentence modification; he did not challenge the sentencing ruling on appeal. The Court of Appeals of Georgia dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Although a timely sentence-modification denial can sometimes support a direct appeal, the court held that Bradberry’s testing request did not qualify as a standalone DNA-testing motion under OCGA § 5-5-41(c) that would authorize direct review, nor did the collateral-order doctrine or any other provision provide an independent basis for a direct appeal. The court noted that, even if the motion were treated as an extraordinary motion for new trial, discretionary appeal procedures would still apply.
criminal lawprocedure
REDINBURG v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-04-06
A Chatham County jury convicted Justin Redinburg of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, based on testimony from two eyewitnesses who claimed he shot and killed Marcus Allen outside a church in June 2009. Redinburg appealed the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing insufficient evidence and errors in the exclusion of certain evidence, including a police-recorded phone conversation between the two witnesses. The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the trial court improperly excluded the recording of the conversation between the eyewitnesses, which occurred after the shooting and could have been used to impeach their credibility or show possible collusion or motives to lie about Redinburg’s involvement. The court found this evidentiary ruling required a new trial, while noting that double jeopardy barred retrial on the murder charges of which Redinburg had been acquitted.
criminal lawprocedure
Willoughby v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-04-05 · cited 7×
In Willoughby v. State, the defendant, accused of vehicular homicide and related offenses after a fatal crash, moved to suppress medical records obtained through a search warrant, claiming the supporting affidavit lacked probable cause. The trial court denied the motion, finding the affidavit sufficient despite its limited details, but the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed that ruling on interlocutory appeal. The court held that the affidavit’s statements—that Willoughby “could possibly” have been driving, at fault for failing to maintain his lane, and under the influence—were purely conclusory and failed to provide specific underlying facts allowing a magistrate to determine there was a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found in the records. Because the affidavit did not meet the legal standard for probable cause under OCGA § 17-5-21(a), the warrant was invalid and the seized records should have been suppressed.
criminal lawprocedure