Mercer v. Johnson, 304 Ga. 219

In 2004 Jessie Mercer was convicted of kidnapping Richard and Parchando (Mrs.) Love, armed robbery, and two aggravated assaults; the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions in 2008.
After Garza (2008) altered the legal standard for asportation in kidnapping, Mercer filed a habeas petition in 2011 arguing the evidence failed to prove asportation for either kidnapping conviction; the habeas court denied relief in 2016.
Facts: three armed intruders (including Mercer and Rasaul Rayshad) entered the Loves' home, threatened them with handguns, bound them, demanded money, and searched for a safe and hidden cash.
Movements at issue: victims were forced to the floor; Mrs. Love was pulled to an aquarium to disable an alarm; Mrs. Love was dragged ~25–30 feet to a closet safe and then returned to the bedroom; money (about $5,000) was hidden under a mattress and later taken.
Trial evidence did not clearly establish whether the money was taken before or after Mrs. Love's movement to the safe; Mr. Love was moved only from standing to the floor.
The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed the habeas appeal under the Garza asportation factors and reversed the kidnapping convictions for both Mr. and Mrs. Love for insufficient asportation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether movement of Mr. Love (standing to floor) constituted sufficient asportation	Mercer: movement was part of kidnapping and sufficed	State: movement happened during violent crime and supported kidnapping	Held: not sufficient — too brief, occurred during robbery, no independent danger
Whether movement of Mrs. Love (to safe and back) constituted sufficient asportation	Mercer: dragging to safe and return substantially isolated and endangered her	State: movement was part of the robbery and did not substantially isolate or increase danger	Held: not sufficient — short duration, occurred during robbery, did not increase danger or isolate
Whether Garza applies retroactively to Mercer’s habeas claim	Mercer: Garza's new asportation test controls his habeas review	State: (implicit) earlier affirmance should stand	Held: Garza applies retroactively to habeas claims arising from convictions before its decision
Whether record shows demarcation between movement and robbery so second Garza factor favors asportation	Mercer: movement may have preceded taking of money	State: evidence ties movement to the robbery (one continuous violent event)	Held: record does not show movement before/after robbery; factor does not favor asportation

Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 (established four-factor asportation test for kidnapping)
Gonzalez v. Hart, 297 Ga. 670 (explained purpose of Garza and application of its factors)
Peoples v. State, 295 Ga. 44 (Garza factors assessed collectively; not all must favor asportation)
Levin v. Morales, 295 Ga. 781 (short, intra-house movements insufficient for asportation)
Upton v. Hardeman, 291 Ga. 720 (second Garza factor supports asportation when crimes occur before or after movement)
Williams v. State, 291 Ga. 501 (demarcation between offense and movement supports asportation)
Sellars v. Evans, 293 Ga. 346 (movement during commission of assault does not support asportation)
Brown v. State, 288 Ga. 902 (movement during a crime does not necessarily establish asportation)
Mercer v. State, 289 Ga. App. 606 (Court of Appeals decision affirming convictions later reconsidered under Garza)
Rayshad v. State, 295 Ga. App. 29 (Court of Appeals reversed kidnapping convictions after Garza application)