Gonzalez v. Hart, 297 Ga. 670

Gonzalez was convicted in 2007 of family violence battery, two counts of aggravated assault, kidnapping with bodily injury, and two counts of aggravated battery arising from two incidents with his ex-girlfriend.
He received an aggregate sentence of life plus 81 years, with consecutive terms; later, on a defense motion, two aggravated assault counts were merged, reducing to life plus 61 years.
On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated one aggravated battery conviction, remanded for re-sentencing, and Gonzalez was resentenced to life plus 41 years on remand.
Gonzalez filed a pro se habeas petition in 2010 asserting ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and cruel and unusual punishment claims.
The habeas court denied relief in 2014, but misapplied Garza v. State in evaluating the asportation element of kidnapping with bodily injury.
The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed, holding that the evidence did not establish the asportation element under Garza and vacated the kidnapping conviction and life sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the evidence satisfy Garza's asportation element?	Gonzalez contends hair-pulling constitutes asportation beyond mere incidental movement.	State argues movement during a single violent event constitutes asportation under Garza.	No; movement was minimal and inseparable from the related aggravated assault.
Was appellate counsel ineffective for not raising Garza-based insufficiency on appeal?	Gonzalez claims appellate counsel failed to challenge insufficiency in light of Garza.	State contends appellate claim lacks merit given record and Garza standards.	Reversed; Garza-based insufficiency should have been raised.
Is the life sentence for kidnapping with bodily injury cruel or unusual given Garza?	Gonzalez asserts Garza undermines kidnapping conviction and its life-term.	State defends the kidnapping conviction and sentence under applicable law.	Not necessary to reach; focus on asportation validity in light of Garza.

Gonzalez v. State, Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 (2008) (Garza articulates four-factor test for asportation and substantial isolation concept)
Sellars v. Evans, 293 Ga. 346 (2013) (discusses asportation factors and retroactivity considerations in Garza context)
Upton v. Hardeman, 291 Ga. 720 (2012) (outlines four Garza-related factors for asportation analysis)
Wilkerson v. Hart, 294 Ga. 605 (2014) (clarifies Garza factors need not all be satisfied for asportation)
Levin v. Morales, 295 Ga. 781 (2014) (emphasizes purpose of Garza test in evaluating asportation)