Odysseus, Avocados, and Election Litigation Timing

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf explains the legal concepts of ripeness and laches, which pertain to the timing of filing a lawsuit, and argues that in the context of election lawsuits, it is far better for courts to relax ripeness rules and risk unnecessary adjudications than to discard the doctrine of laches and risk widespread disenfranchisement and the undermining of confidence in fair elections.

Read More

Armstrong v. Georgia

Docket: S20A1364

Opinion Date: December 21, 2020

Judge: Peterson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Jhakeem Armstrong appealed his conviction for malice murder for the death of Robert Parrish, Jr. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred by admitting evidence he was affiliated with a gang under OCGA 24-4-404 (b) (“Rule 404 (b)”), by permitting witness testimony regarding certain photographs on the internet because the testimony amounted to hearsay and violated the best evidence rule and the Confrontation Clause, and by failing to give a limiting instruction regarding evidence that he was affiliated with a gang. He also contended his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to ensure that the trial court gave the jury the limiting instruction. The Georgia Supreme Court found the evidence of Armstrong’s gang affiliation was relevant to and probative of his motive for committing the crime charged and was thus admissible under Rule 404 (b). "And even assuming that the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding the internet photos and failing to give a limiting instruction, such errors did not contribute to the verdict, and Armstrong has not shown that his trial counsel’s assistance was ineffective."

Boone v. Georgia

Docket: S21A0171

Opinion Date: December 21, 2020

Judge: Harold D. Melton

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 2012, Odeirrick Boone entered a non-negotiated guilty plea to malice murder and other offenses in connection with the robbery of a convenience store and the stabbing death of the store owner, Balk Sung. In 2020, Boone filed a pro se motion for leave to file an out-of-time appeal, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for having failed to inform him of his right to pursue an appeal of his convictions. The trial court denied Boone’s motion summarily and without holding a hearing, which prompted this appeal. The State conceded the trial court’s order had to be vacated and this case remanded to the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether Boone was entitled to an out-of-time appeal due to the ineffective assistance of his plea counsel.

Doricien v. Georgia

Docket: S21A0262

Opinion Date: December 21, 2020

Judge: Harold D. Melton

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Jean Claude Doricien was convicted by jury of felony murder, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, and various other offenses in connection with the shooting death of Tovara Flowers. On appeal, Doricien contended: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal; (2) the trial court erred by failing to exclude from trial various statements that Doricien made to the police; and (3) he was denied constitutionally effective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed.

Flanders v. Georgia

Docket: S20G0464

Opinion Date: December 21, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Georgia Supreme Court determined the court of appeals erred in holding a trial court properly declined to address a claim raised by Christina Flanders in an amended motion to withdraw her guilty plea. Flanders pled guilty to aggravated assault and first-degree child cruelty, for which Flanders was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment and 5 years' probation. A month later, Flanders moved to withdraw her plea, arguing her attorneys were ineffective; the amended motion at issue here alleged the State failed to disclose the existence of a taped interview with the victim wherein the victim denied Flanders injured her. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court concluded the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim because the amended motion was filed outside the term of court in which Flanders had entered her guilty plea, even though the original motion was timely filed within the term of court in which the plea was entered. "With respect to a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, no statutory authority prohibits a defendant from amending outside the term of court a proper motion to withdraw a guilty plea that was filed within the term of court in which the conviction was entered. In fact, '[n]o statute sets forth the procedures by which a motion to withdraw a guilty plea may be entertained by the trial court after a sentence has been pronounced.'" The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the court of appeals' opinion, and remanded this case to that court so that it could address Flanders' claim the trial court erred in declining to address her claims in her amended motion to withdraw her guilty plea.

Guzman-Perez v. Georgia

Docket: S20A1102

Opinion Date: December 21, 2020

Judge: Harold D. Melton

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellant Fernando Guzman-Perez was convicted by jury of malice murder and concealing the death of another in connection with the death of his wife, Yamilet Rodriguez. On appeal, Appellant argued the evidence was insufficient to support his murder conviction and that he was denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed.

Knighton v. Georgia

Docket: S20A1195

Opinion Date: December 21, 2020

Judge: David E. Nahmias

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellant Quran Knighton was convicted of malice murder and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony in connection with the stabbing death of Markice Harris. Appellant contended that by twice interrupting his counsel’s closing argument to provide instructions to the jury, the trial court committed plain error and denied him his constitutional right to a fair trial, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the interruptions and instructions. Finding no reversible error from these contentions, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed.

Lynn v. Georgia

Docket: S20A1533

Opinion Date: December 21, 2020

Judge: Peterson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

James Morris Lynn, Jr., appealed his conviction for malice murder and aggravated assault in connection with the beating death of his wife, Tonya. Lynn argued on appeal that the Georgia Supreme Court should vacate the trial court’s order denying his motion for new trial for lack of adequate findings and remand for more detailed findings. He also argued: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial; (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (3) the combined errors cumulatively prejudiced him. The Supreme Court determined: the trial court was not required to make detailed findings in denying Lynn’s motion for new trial; the trial court did not err in denying Lynn’s motion for a mistrial because the alleged basis for a mistrial posed little prejudice to Lynn and the court gave a sufficient curative instruction; Lynn’s ineffective assistance claims failed because he did not establish trial counsel performed deficiently in any respect; and his cumulative error argument failed because there were no errors to cumulate. The Court vacated Lynn’s sentence for aggravated assault because this count should have merged with the malice murder conviction, but the murder conviction was affirmed.

Martin v. Georgia

Dockets: S20A1134, S20A1135

Opinion Date: December 21, 2020

Judge: Harold D. Melton

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In related appeals, Dreshaun Martin and Tori Byrd appealed their convictions for the malice murder of Valentine Dwight Gant, Jr., and the aggravated assault of Gant’s three-year-old son. Both raised claims that the trial court erred in certain rulings during trial, that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions, and they received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no errors, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed their convictions.

Nuckles v. Georgia

Docket: S20G0492

Opinion Date: December 21, 2020

Judge: Carla Wong McMillian

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Wanda Nuckles was charged with depriving James Dempsey, an elder person, of essential services and concealing his death. Prior to her trial on those charges, Nuckles filed a motion seeking to exclude a video recording captured on a camera concealed in Dempsey’s room at the residential rehabilitation center where Nuckles worked, asserting that the recording was inadmissible under OCGA 16-11-67 because she did not consent to its recording as required under OCGA 16-11-62 (2). The trial court denied the motion, and Nuckles appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court in an unpublished opinion. The Georgia Supreme Court granted Nuckles’s petition for certiorari on the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the video recording at issue fell within the exception provided in OCGA 16-11-62 (2) (B). Because the Supreme Court agreed that the video recording fell within that exception, judgment was affirmed.

Thomas v. Georgia

Docket: S20A1187

Opinion Date: December 21, 2020

Judge: Warren

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Travis Thomas, Jr. was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting deaths of Jabrial Adams and Kenny Hart. On appeal, Thomas contended the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial, admitting evidence of a confession, and admitting testimony regarding pre-trial identifications of Thomas. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed.