Filter This View

  • Miller v. The State

    Publication Date: 2017-11-08
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Presiding Judge Barnes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ramon Alvarado (Attorney at Law), Norcross, for appellant.
    for defendant: Stephanie Woodard (Solicitor General), Gainesville; Michael George (Hall County Solicitor General's Office), Gainesville, for appellee.
    Case Number: A17A0651

    In defendant's DUI trial, the trial court admitted defendant's prior DUI conviction for proper purposes, including that such evidence tended to show her knowledge of the effects of alcohol consumption on her driving and knowledge about the use of testing to determine impairment, and the trial court was authorized to find that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact, despite the age of the prior DUI conviction.

  • Turner v. The State

    Publication Date: 2017-10-12
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Presiding Judge Barnes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Lawrence Daniel (Attorney at Law), Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Brian Fortner (Douglas County District Attorney), Douglasville; David Emadi (Douglas County District Attorney's Office), Douglasville, for appellee.
    Case Number: A17A1045

    The evidence supported defendant's conviction for first-degree homicide by vehicle after she "blacked out" and ran over the victim during an argument with the father of her children and his girlfriend.

  • Parham v. The State

    Publication Date: 2017-09-29
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Presiding Judge Barnes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Leigh Webster (Strickland Webster LLC), Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Amelia Pray (District Attorney's Office, Cobb Judicial Circuit), Marietta; D. Reynolds (District Attorney), Marietta, for appellee.
    Case Number: A17A1663

    The Court affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for two counts of theft by deception, finding that the trial court was authorized to sentence defendant under the general recidivist statute, O.C.G.A. 17-10-7 subsection (a) and subsection (c), rather than solely under the more specific recidivist provision applicable to theft-by-deception convictions, based on defendant's prior felony convictions.