Georgia Supreme Court Opinions Published March 3, 2026

1 Suprem e Court o f G eorgia Kathleen Joyner, Public Information Officer 330 Capitol Ave, SE Atlanta, Georgia 30334 404-651-9385 joynerk@gasupreme.us SUMMARIES OF OPINI ONS Publis hed Tuesday, March 3, 2026 Please n ote: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Public Information Office for the general public and news media. Summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered of particular public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official opinions of the Court. The full opinions are available on the Supreme Court website at www.gasupreme.us. GIBSO N v. HEAD, WARDEN (S26A0185) The Sup reme Cour t of Geo rgia has affirmed the h abeas cou rt’s d enial of E xzavious Gibson ’s second petition for w rit of habeas corpus, which challenged the legality of his 1990 convictions for murder and armed robbery in Dodge County. A jury found Gibson guilty of the murder of a grocery store operator during an armed robbery committed when Gibson was 17. Gibson subsequently was sentenced to death for murder and life in prison for armed robbery. His convictions and sentence were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in 1991. Gibson’s first state petition for writ of habeas c orpus in Butt s County Superior Court was denied in 1997, and his request to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court in 1999. In 2000, Gibson filed a second petition. One of Gibson’s main contentions was that the lawyer who represented him at trial and on direct appeal, Daniel Mullis, had a conflict of interest by working as a special assistant attorney genera l for the State while also defending Gibson against state prosecution. After a lengthy procedural history—during which time the habeas court vacated Gibson’s death sentence based on his age at the time of the murder but allowed his convictions to stand— the habeas court ultim ately den ied reli ef, and Gibson appealed.

2 The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on Jan. 20, 2026. Gibson argued that his cri minal co nvicti ons sho uld be v acated bec aus e he was d enied th e right to effe ctive as sistan ce of counsel due to his trial counsel’s conflict in representing him while also working as a special assis tant att orney gene ral. Today’s unanimous opinion, authored by Just ice Shawn El len LaGr ua, affirms the habeas court’s denial of Gibson’s petition because “the record supports the habeas court’s conclusio n that Gibson fa iled to show th at an ac tual conflict of interest existed that significa ntly and advers ely af fected his tri al couns el’s per forma nce.” “A review of the record and our prior decisions in Gibson’s cases support the habeas court’s conclusions that, despite any potential conflict of interest, Mullis diligently represented Gibson at trial and on direct appeal, and Mullis’s separate work as a contract Special Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Transportation did not impede or impair his willingness or ability to fulfill his obligations to professionally and staunchly represent Gibson in his crimin al case, ” Justi ce LaGrua writes. The opinion also states that while “the better practice would certainly have been for Mullis to disclose his role as a Spec ial Assistant Attorne y General to Gibson and the tria l court in compliance with OCGA § 45-15-30,” the Supreme Court “cannot say—given the facts and circums tances present ed i n this case — that Mullis’s f ailure to ma ke that disclosur e adversely affected his representation of Gibson.” [Chief Ju stice N els S.D. Peter son was recused in this case.] Attorneys fo r Appel lant (Gi bson): Megan Hurley, Valerie Pallos, Sarah Gerwig, Dylan McDowell, Matthew Shatto, Vatia Frazier, Lucious Moore Attorneys for Ap pellee (Head): Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General of Georgia; Beth A. Burton, Deputy A.G.; Ross W. Bergethon, Principal Deputy Solicitor General; Christian Sullivan, Asst. A.G. * = Authorized to practice as third- year law students with the Mercer University School of Law Habeas Pro ject. SANDERS v. THE STATE (S26A0222) The Supreme Court of Georgia has affirmed Joshua Sanders ’s conv ictions for malice murder and related crimes in connection with the 2022 shooting deaths of Latorey Harde n and her mot her, Pamel a Hard en, in T oombs County. On appeal, Sanders argued that the attorney who handled his motion for new trial was ineffe ctive for f aili ng to rai se a claim t hat San ders’ s defens e couns el at tri al was ineffect ive fo r failing to “shape” and “guide” Sanders’s testimony on direct examination, which Sanders contended reflected negatively on his character. Today’s unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Verda M. Co lvin, states that Sanders’s claim i s procedu rally barred b ecause i t focus e d on his trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness rather than on his motion- for - new -trial counsel’s performance, and the Court has previously held that a def endant cannot rais e a claim of ineffe ctive assistan ce o f trial cou nsel that was not r aised

3 at the m otion for new tria l st age by recas ting t he cl aim on app eal as on e of i neffecti ve assi stanc e of motion- for -new-trial counsel. Chief J ustice Nel s S.D. Peters on has authored a concurring opinion, joined by P residing Justi ce Sarah H awkins Warren and J usti ces Cha rlie Bet hel, Carl a Wong McMill ian, S hawn Ell en LaGrua, Verda M. Colvin, and Andrew A. Pinson, which points out flaws in Georgia’s post- conviction litigation system, including the Court’s long-standing rule requiring claims of ineffectiv eness of tr ial counsel to be ra ised immediately on a motion for n ew trial. “Georgia’s post- convic tion litigation system is a mess,” Chief Justice Peterson write s. “It’s a mes s in lar ge part because o f a se ries of w ell -meaning but short-sighted decisions this Court made over the course of several decades. Those decisions had a worthy goal: seeking to ensure that indigent defendants were entitled to appointed counsel for litigating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. But the means we used to pursue that goal have made things worse, not better.” The resul t, Chi ef Justi ce Pet erson st ates, i s a post - conviction litig ation syste m that “priori tizes in effecti vene ss clai ms (whi ch have a l ow su ccess rat e) in exchang e for impo sing serious costs.” These cos ts incl ude del ays i n lit igatin g appeals, Chief Jus tice Pet erson st ates, as well as making “much harder the litigation of claims of preserved trial court error (which have a higher success rate).” The concurring opinion goes on to suggest that there may be legislative remedies. A ttor ney for the Appe llant (Sande rs): Joshua B. Smith Attorneys fo r the App ellee (S tate): Christopher M. C arr, Attorney General of Ge orgia; Beth A. Burton, Deputy A.G.; Meghan H. Hill, Sr. Asst. A.G.; Elizabeth H. Broc k, Asst. A.G.; John A. “Tripp” Fitzner, III, Middle Judicial Circ uit District A ttorney; Jessic a B. Wilson, Chief Asst. D.A. ****************************************************************************** The Supreme Court of Georgia has upheld murder convictions and life pri son sentences for: *Rodriquez Hamilton, Jr. (Glynn Co.) HAMILTON v. THE STATE (S26A0435) *Quintavious Jackson (DeKalb Co.) JACKSON v. THE STATE (S25A1498) [The Court also vacated his felony murder sentences and remanded the case back to the trial court for resentencing to fix a sentence merging error.] * Terrance M edin a (DeKal b Co.) MEDINA v. THE STATE (S2 6A0632) *Johnson Mitchell (Fulton Co.) MITCHELL v. THE STATE (S26A0419) *David Robinson (Fulton Co.) ROBINSO N v. THE STATE (S26A0282) *Ralph Rogers (Miller Co.) ROGERS v. THE STATE (S26A0128) *Oscar Senior (Muscogee Co.) SENIOR v. THE STATE (S26A0510) *Gregory Small (Fulton Co.) SMALL v. THE STATE (S26A0113) *Aaron Strong (Cobb Co.) STRONG v. THE STATE (S25A1107) *Maliek Woods (DeKalb Co.) WOODS v. THE STATE (S25A1088)

4 IN LAWYER DIS CIPLINARY MATTE RS, the Georgia Supreme Court has d isb arred the following attorney: * Joseph Willia m Cloud IN THE MATTER OF: JOSEPH WILLIAM CLOUD (S2 6 Y0 287) The Court also has revers ed the sp ecial m aster’s order to deny op enin g defau lt and has reman ded b ack to th e special mas ter the matter involving attorney: * Oksana Klymovych IN THE MATTER OF: OKSANA KLYMOVYCH (S26Y0 042)