GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Atlanta Botanical Garden, Inc.
299 Ga. 26
Ga.
2016
Check Treatment

GEORGIACARRY.ORG, INC. et al. v. ATLANTA BOTANICAL GARDEN, INC.

S16A0294

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 9, 2016

785 SE2d 874

HUNSTEIN, Justice.

contents. But at a subsequent hearing,5 the prosecuting attorney testified that, before the trial court‘s lunch recess, he and Edwards‘s lawyer had met with the judge in his chambers, and the jury‘s note was read and discussed. In its order denying the motion for new trial, the trial court expressly credited this testimony and found that Edwards‘s lawyer “was present for the reading of the jury note, was aware of the contents of the note, and had ample opportunity to ask for the discussions in chambers to be put on the record along with the opportunity to object to the Allen charge or any other handling of the note.” That finding is not clearly erroneous, and the trial court did not mishandle the note from the jury.6

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

DECIDED MAY 9, 2016.

Pate & Johnson, Page A. Pate, Jess B. Johnson, for appellant.

J. David Miller, District Attorney, Harriet M. Thomas, Assistant District Attorney; Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jason M. Rea, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

HUNSTEIN, Justice.

Appellants Georgia Carry.Org, Inc. and Phillip Evans appeal the dismissal of their petition for declaratory and injunctive relief as to the Atlanta Botanical Garden‘s prohibition of weapons on the Garden‘s premises. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

The facts are not in dispute. The Garden is a non-profit corporation that operates a botanical garden complex on property leased from the City of Atlanta. Evans, who holds a Georgia weapons carry license, visited the Garden twice in October 2014 and wore a handgun in a waistband holster each time. After gaining admission to the Garden on his second visit, Evans was stopped by an employee of the Garden and advised that he could not carry the weapon at the Garden; a security officer detained Evans, and Evans was eventually escorted from the Garden by an officer with the Atlanta Police Department.

Appellants subsequently petitioned the Fulton County Superior Court for declaratory and injunctive relief on the basis that OCGA § 16-11-127 (c)1 authorizes Evans — and similarly licensed individuals — to carry a weapon at the Garden. Appellants sought a declaration that the Garden could not prohibit licensed individuals from “carrying weapons on property that the Garden leases from the City of Atlanta,” an injunction prohibiting the Garden from “causing the arrest or prosecution of [licensed individuals] from carrying weapons at the [Garden],” and an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the Garden from “banning the carrying of weapons at the [Garden] by [licensed individuals] or from causing [their] arrest or prosecution . . . for carrying weapons at the [Garden].” In response, the Garden moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, inter alia, that a declaratory action may not be used to interpret a criminal statute, that a declaratory action may not be used to compel a party to take (or refrain from taking) specific action, and that an injunction may not be used to inhibit or control the enforcement of criminal laws. The trial court, agreeing with the Garden‘s position, granted the motion to dismiss.

1. Appellants first argue that the trial court erroneously dismissed their declaratory judgment action; we agree.

It is well settled that

[a] motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted should not be sustained unless (1) the allegations of the complaint disclose with certainty that the claimant would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts asserted in support thereof; and (2) the movant establishes that the claimant could not possibly introduce evidence within the framework of the complaint sufficient to warrant a grant of the relief sought. If, within the framework of the complaint, evidence may be introduced which will sustain a grant of the relief sought by the claimant, the complaint is sufficient and a motion to dismiss should be denied. In deciding a motion to dismiss, all pleadings are to be construed most favorably to the party who filed them, and all doubts regarding such pleadings must be resolved in the filing party‘s favor.

(Footnotes omitted.) . “On appeal, a trial court‘s ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted is reviewed de novo.” .

The State Declaratory Judgment Act gives superior courts the power to declare rights and other legal relations of any interested party in “cases of actual controversy” under OCGA § 9-4-2 (a) and “in any civil case in which it appears to the court that the ends of justice require that the declaration should be made.” OCGA § 9-4-2 (b).

. Such relief is authorized when there are

circumstances showing [a] necessity for a determination of the dispute to guide and protect the plaintiff from uncertainty and insecurity with regard to the propriety of some future act or conduct, which is properly incident to his alleged rights and which if taken without direction might reasonably jeopardize his interest.

. ” ‘The proper scope of declaratory judgment is to adjudge those rights among parties upon which their future conduct depends.’ ”

.

Relying on , the trial court dismissed Appellants’ petition for declaratory relief on the basis that it impermissibly required the trial court to interpret and apply a criminal statute. See (no justiciable controversy where petitioners sought a declaration that intoxicating liquors could be sold legally at a private social club in Fulton County because equity “will take no part in the administration of the criminal law“).2 See also . However, a declaratory judgment action is not inappropriate merely because it touches upon a question of criminal law; in fact, such an action “is an available remedy to test the validity and enforceability of a statute where an actual controversy exists with respect thereto.” . See also (authorizing a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of municipal ordinance criminalizing the discharge of a weapon in certain areas of Gwinnett County); (addressing the merits of a declaratory judgment action challenging a statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly admit a person under the age of 21 to premises on which sexually explicit performances take place). Declaratory relief is not available, though, where the criminal conduct has already been completed, where a prosecution is pending, or where there has already been a conviction. See, e.g., (“Declaratory relief is not the proper remedy for attacking the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance where the alleged criminal activity has already taken place.“); (recognizing that a declaratory action is “not maintainable by persons already convicted of crimes who wish to examine or reexamine aspects of the conviction or sentence“); (no declaratory relief where petitioners were already subject to criminal proceedings); (petition for declaratory relief properly dismissed where criminal conduct had already occurred and petitioners were

being prosecuted).3 On the other end of the spectrum, mere speculation regarding the application of a criminal provision is insufficient to maintain a declaratory judgment action because the requisite justiciable controversy is absent. See (“sheer speculation” and “a challenge to the sufficiency of the potential evidence that might be used against [petitioner] in some future prosecution” insufficient to warrant declaratory relief); (declaratory relief not available where there was no prosecution or threat of prosecution under challenged local law); (declaratory judgment action properly dismissed where petitioner failed to demonstrate that there was any threat of enforcement or prosecution of a challenged statute). We must now determine where Appellants’ petition falls along this spectrum.

Though OCGA § 16-11-127 (c) is found within the confines of the criminal code, Appellants here “do[ ] not seek an advisory opinion that [their] proposed actions would not be criminal.” . Instead, Appellants seek a determination of whether licensed individuals may carry a weapon on the grounds of the Garden in accordance with OCGA § 16-11-127 (c). See . Further, Appellants’ requested relief is not premised on mere speculation that the Garden will enforce its weapons ban; Evans, who holds a membership with the Garden, had already been asked to leave the premises of the Garden and was escorted from the property by law enforcement. Importantly, however, there is no allegation here that criminal conduct has been accomplished. See (recognizing that an essential element of criminal trespass is a showing that entry onto the premises had previously been expressly forbidden). Accordingly, Appellants’ request for declaratory relief was not impermissible, and it was error to dismiss Appellants’ declaratory judgment action on the basis that it improperly called for the interpretation and application of a criminal statute.

Additionally, we disagree with the trial court that the declaratory relief requested here, if granted, would somehow require action by the Garden or some other third party. See (“The Declaratory Judgment Act provides a means by which a superior court ‘simply declares

the rights of the parties or expresses (its) opinion . . . on a question of law, without ordering anything to be done.’ “). While the wording of the petition requests a declaration that the Garden “may not ban” licensed individuals from carrying weapons at the facility, the practical effect of the request — and the relief sought — is simply a declaration that Evans, and similarly licensed individuals, may carry their respective weapons on the Garden‘s premises. That relief, if granted, is simply a declaration of rights and requires no action on the part of the Garden or anyone else. See (a declaratory judgment is “an order simply delineating what the applicable legal authority requires or prohibits“). Cf. (declaratory judgment may not be used to compel rule-making process); (declaratory judgment could not be used to compel ex-husband to provide additional funds to ex-wife).

The trial court erred by dismissing Appellants’ request for declaratory judgment on the basis that it impermissibly asked the trial court to interpret a criminal statute and that it improperly compelled action by the Garden. Accordingly, the trial court‘s order is reversed in this respect and this action remanded for further proceedings.

2. The trial court also dismissed Appellants’ request for injunctive relief; this was proper in part.

Appellants sought a permanent and interlocutory injunction prohibiting the Garden “from causing the arrest or prosecution” of licensed individuals who carry weapons at the facility. As Appellants recognize on appeal, however, the Garden is not a government entity and it lacks the power to administer the criminal law. Because the Garden lacks the authority to administer the criminal law, enjoining the Garden from “causing” an arrest or prosecution would be fruitless. See generally (recognizing the broad discretion of prosecutors in making decisions about whom to prosecute and what charges to bring). Further, this portion of Appellants’ requested injunctive relief — enjoining the arrest or prosecution of Appellants — squarely implicates the administration of criminal law and, thus, is improper. See (injunction not available where sought to interfere with an ongoing prosecution); (injunction not available to restrain trespass prosecution); (recognizing that “[e]quity will not enjoin a criminal prosecution solely to prevent such a prosecution’ “).

On the other hand, Appellants also sought an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the Garden from banning licensed individuals from carrying weapons on the Garden‘s premises. For the reasons discussed above, however, this claim — which is identical to Appellants’ claim for declaratory relief — does not improperly implicate the administration of criminal law. Accordingly, this portion of Appellants’ claim for injunctive relief was improperly dismissed.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and case remanded. All the Justices concur.

DECIDED MAY 9, 2016.

John R. Monroe, for appellants.

Alston & Bird, Michael L. Brown, David B. Carpenter, for appellee.

Notes

1
OCGA § 16-11-127 (c) states as follows:

A license holder or person recognized under subsection (e) of Code Section 16-11-126 shall be authorized to carry a weapon as provided in Code Section 16-11-135 and in every location in this state not listed in subsection (b) or prohibited by subsection (e) of this Code section; provided, however, that private property owners or persons in legal control of private property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such private property shall have the right to exclude or eject a person who is in possession of a weapon or long gun on their private property in accordance with paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of Code Section 16-7-21, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135. A violation of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not create or give rise to a civil action for damages.

2
We note that while equity will “take no part in the administration of the criminal law,” see OCGA § 9-5-2, it is well established that a request for declaratory relief is generally an action at law. See (“Under the above ruling, the equitable feature of the case is removed, leaving the action solely one at law under the Declaratory Judgment Act.“).
3
But see (declaratory action may continue with respect to one party after criminal conduct had occurred where that party, unlike others, was not being prosecuted).
5
The trial court held a second hearing pursuant to the State‘s request to reopen the motion for new trial to present further testimony and evidence. The court was authorized to reopen the evidence on motion for new trial to hear additional testimony on this matter. See .
6
In the alternative, Edwards argues that his lawyer was ineffective to the extent that she failed to object to the Allen charge and request that the trial court instead declare a mistrial due to the “deadlocked” jury. Edwards has failed to show, however, that the Allen charge was impermissibly coercive, see , and he likewise has failed to show that a mistrial was required. See . Because there has been no showing that the Allen charge was objectionable or that a mistrial was necessary, Edwards has failed to support this claim of ineffective assistance by demonstrating any deficient performance by his trial lawyer or any prejudice as a result of that deficiency. See ; ; .
Read the detailed case summary