Chatman v. Brown
291 Ga. 785
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Brown was convicted in 1999 of kidnapping with bodily injury, aggravated assault on a person 65 or older, robbery by force, and burglary for beating and robbing Margaret Logan; convictions upheld on appeal.
- In 2008 Brown sought habeas relief arguing Garza v. State (asportation element) and Brodes v. State (identification reliability instructions) were violated.
- The habeas court granted relief on the Garza issue, setting aside the kidnapping conviction, but denied relief on the Brodes issue.
- The warden appeals the Garza ruling (Case No. S12A0674) and Brown appeals the Brodes ruling (Case No. S12X0675).
- The Georgia Supreme Court reverses the Garza-based relief (S12A0674) and affirms the Brodes ruling (S12X0675).
- Garza held that, for pre-2009 kidnapping, asportation must be more than incidental with four factors; Garza was later superseded by statute for post-July 1, 2009 offenses, but found retroactive because it was a substantive change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record supports asportation under Garza | Brown argues Garza factors negate asportation | State contends the movement and factors support asportation | Supported by the record under Garza |
| Whether Brodes procedural rule retroactivity applies to habeas | Brown argues Brodes is retroactive substantive change | State argues Brodes is procedural and not retroactive | Brodes is procedural and not retroactive |
| Whether Garza’s retroactivity applies to Brown’s case | Brown argues Garza’s substantive change is retroactive | State argues Garza does not apply retroactively to this case | Garza retroactively applicable to Brown's case |
Key Cases Cited
- Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 ((2008)) (established four-factor Garza test for asportation)
- Brown v. State, 288 Ga. 902 ((2011)) (evidence sufficiency for asportation when most factors support verdict)
- Henderson v. State, 285 Ga. -240 ((2009)) (movement of victims not inherent part of armed robbery)
- Brodes v. State, 279 Ga. 435 ((2005)) (identification witness certainty instructions are procedural rule)
- Hammond v. State, 289 Ga. 142 ((2011)) (substantive change includes decisions removing conduct from reach of statute)