Mercer v. Johnson, Warden, 304 Ga. 219

In 2004 Jessie Mercer and two co‑defendants forcibly entered Richard and Parchando Love’s home, pointed handguns, bound them, threatened them, and demanded money.
The intruders searched for a safe; Mrs. Love was dragged about 25–30 feet to a closet safe and back to the bedroom. The couple later lost $5,000 hidden under a mattress.
Mercer was convicted of armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and two counts of kidnapping (one as to each Love). On direct appeal Mercer challenged only the sufficiency of asportation for Mr. Love; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
After Garza v. State (2008) changed the asportation test, Mercer filed habeas corpus arguing both kidnapping convictions were unsupported under Garza. The habeas court denied relief; Mercer appealed.
The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed the Garza factors (duration, whether movement occurred during another crime, whether movement was inherent to that crime, and whether movement presented independent danger) and reversed the habeas denial, finding insufficient asportation for both victims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether movement of Mr. Love (made to the floor) constituted asportation for kidnapping	Mercer: Movement minimal and occurred during robbery; insufficient asportation under Garza test	State: Movement supported kidnapping conviction	Held: Movement to floor was of minimal duration, during robbery, did not present independent danger — insufficient asportation; kidnapping conviction reversed
Whether movement of Mrs. Love (dragged to safe ~25–30 ft and back) constituted asportation for kidnapping	Mercer: Movement was short, occurred during theft/robbery, and did not substantially isolate or add danger — insufficient under Garza	State: Moving Mrs. Love to safe and back supports kidnapping conviction	Held: Movement short in duration; occurred during the ongoing robbery (no demarcation before/after taking of money); did not increase risk beyond initial threat — insufficient asportation; kidnapping conviction reversed

Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 (establishing four‑factor asportation test)
Gonzalez v. Hart, 297 Ga. 670 (Garza factors applied; focus on substantial isolation from protection/rescue)
Peoples v. State, 295 Ga. 44 (Garza factors considered as whole; not all must favor asportation)
Levin v. Morales, 295 Ga. 781 (short internal movements insufficient for asportation)
Upton v. Hardeman, 291 Ga. 720 (movement before/after other crimes may support asportation)
Williams v. State, 291 Ga. 501 (demarcation between violent act and movement relevant to asportation)
Sellars v. Evans, 293 Ga. 346 (movement occurring during aggravated assault does not support asportation)
Brown v. State, 288 Ga. 902 (movement during course of related crimes insufficient for asportation)
Mercer v. State, 289 Ga. App. 606 (Court of Appeals decision affirming original convictions)
Rayshad v. State, 295 Ga. App. 29 (applying Garza and reversing co‑defendant’s kidnapping convictions)