section 5-5-20 discretion in Georgia

2026“This Court presumes, in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, that the trial court properly exercised its discretion pursuant to OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21.” Holmes v. State, 306 Ga. 524, 528 (2019).

2026“This Court presumes, in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, that the trial court properly exercised its discretion pursuant to OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21.” Holmes v. State, 306 Ga. 524, 528 (2019).

2026Furthermore, “[t]he law does not require a trial court to provide findings regarding the factors it considered in exercising its discretion as the thirteenth juror, so long as it is clear that the trial court applied the correct legal standard and exercised its discretion under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21.” State v. Denson, 306 Ga. 795, 799 (2019).

2026Furthermore, “[t]he law does not require a trial court to provide findings regarding the factors it considered in exercising its discretion as the thirteenth juror, so long as it is clear that the trial court applied the correct legal standard and exercised its discretion under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21.” State v. Denson, 306 Ga. 795, 799 (2019).

2024In its order denying his motion for new trial, the court “[a]cknowledg[ed] [its] duty to consider the evidence at trial under the ‘thirteenth juror’ standard [under] OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21,” and then expressly rejected 10 Frady’s general grounds claim, finding that Frady was “not entitled to a new trial on the general grounds.” See Allen v. State, 296 Ga. 738, 741 (2) ( 770 SE2d 625 ) (2015) (holding that record indicated that trial court properly exercised its discretion under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 when it stated during hearing that it would not grant a new trial as “the thirteenth jur

2024In its order denying his motion for new trial, the court “[a]cknowledg[ed] [its] duty to consider the evidence at trial under the ‘thirteenth juror’ standard [under] OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21,” and then expressly rejected 10 Frady’s general grounds claim, finding that Frady was “not entitled to a new trial on the general grounds.” See Allen v. State, 296 Ga. 738, 741 (2) ( 770 SE2d 625 ) (2015) (holding that record indicated that trial court properly exercised its discretion under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 when it stated during hearing that it would not grant a new trial as “the thirteenth jur

2024(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Holmes, 306 Ga. at 528 (2) (affirming judgment in part, vacating judgment in part, and remanding case with direction based on this Court’s conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions but the trial court failed to exercise its discretion under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21); see also White, 293 Ga. at 525-526 (2) (vacating the denial of a motion for new trial and remanding for the trial court to apply the proper standard to the general 11 grounds and to exercise its discretion to sit as a “thirteenth juror” pursuant to OCGA

2021Thus, the order “clearly indicates that [the court] properly performed its duty to exercise its discretion and weigh the evidence in consideration of the general grounds.”25 And as our Supreme Court has previously explained, 23 Wiggins, 330 Ga. App. at 210 (c) (punctuation omitted); accord White, 293 Ga. at 524-25 (2). 24 Holmes, 306 Ga. at 528 (2) (punctuation omitted). 25 Hamlette v. State, 353 Ga. App. 640 , 650 (5) ( 839 SE2d 161 ) (2020); see Allen v. State, 296 Ga. 738, 741 (2) ( 770 SE2d 625 ) (2015) (holding that record indicated trial court properly exercised its discretion under OCGA

2022Thus, as here, “when a trial court enters an order denying a motion for new trial and, ‘without more, recites that the new trial is refused or denied, this will be taken to mean that [the judge] has in the exercise of his discretion approved the verdict.’” (Citation omitted.) Price v. State, 305 Ga. 608, 613 (3) ( 825 SE2d 178 ) (2019).

2022Thus, as here, “when a trial court enters an order denying a motion for new trial and, ‘without more, recites that the new trial is refused or denied, this will be taken to mean that [the judge] has in the exercise of his discretion approved the verdict.’” (Citation omitted.) Price v. State, 305 Ga. 608, 613 (3) ( 825 SE2d 178 ) (2019).

2019Murdock, 299 Ga. at 178 (2).

2017See Murdock, 299 Ga. at 178 (affirming summary denial of new trial motion based on general grounds); Butts, 297 Ga. at 772 (same). (c) Wilson also attacks the denial of his new trial motion on the ground that it was decided by a different, judge than the judge who had presided at his trial.

2021Whether to grant a new trial based on OCGA § 5-5-21, i.e., that the verdict is strongly against the evidence, is one that is solely in the discretion of the trial court, and the appellate courts do not have the same discretion to order new trials.16 Consequently, even when an appellant asks us to “review a trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial on the general grounds, this Court must review the case under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, supra, that is, if the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supports the verdict or verdicts.”17 And as explained

2021Whether to grant a new trial based on OCGA § 5-5-21, i.e., that the verdict is strongly against the evidence, is one that is solely in the discretion of the trial court, and the appellate courts do not have the same discretion to order new trials.16 Consequently, even when an appellant asks us to “review a trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial on the general grounds, this Court must review the case under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, supra, that is, if the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supports the verdict or verdicts.”17 And as explained

2020See Burney v. State, 299 Ga. 813, 815 ( 792 SE2d 354 ) (2016).

2020See Burney v. State, 299 Ga. 813, 815 ( 792 SE2d 354 ) (2016).

2017See Murdock, 299 Ga. at 178 (affirming summary denial of new trial motion based on general grounds); Butts, 297 Ga. at 772 (same). (c) Wilson also attacks the denial of his new trial motion on the ground that it was decided by a different, judge than the judge who had presided at his trial.

2017See Murdock, 299 Ga. at 178 (affirming summary denial of new trial motion based on general grounds); Butts, 297 Ga. at 772 (same). (c) Wilson also attacks the denial of his new trial motion on the ground that it was decided by a different judge than the judge who had presided at his trial.

2016See Gray v. State, 298 Ga. 885, 886 ( 785 SE2d 517 ) (2016); Slaton v. State, 296 Ga. 122, 125 ( 765 SE2d 332 ) (2014).

2016See Gray v. State, 298 Ga. 885, 886 ( 785 SE2d 517 ) (2016); Slaton v. State, 296 Ga. 122, 125 ( 765 SE2d 332 ) (2014).

2024Thus, the trial court’s order shows that the court properly exercised its discretion under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, and Madera’s argument “is otherwise not subject to review by this Court.”2 See Weems, 318 Ga. 2 Madera does not separately argue that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction as a matter of constitutional due process under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2024Thus, the trial court’s order shows that the court properly exercised its discretion under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, and Madera’s argument “is otherwise not subject to review by this Court.”2 See Weems, 318 Ga. 2 Madera does not separately argue that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction as a matter of constitutional due process under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2026Bostic, 322 Ga. at 696 (6) (citations and punctuation omitted).

2025“This Court presumes, in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, that the trial court properly exercised its discretion pursuant to OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21.” Holmes v. State, 306 Ga. 524, 528 (2) ( 832 SE2d 392 ) (2019); see also Moore, 315 Ga. App. at 391 (3).

2025See Drennon v. State, 314 Ga. 854 , 861 (2022). 9 three photographs were taken during Cason’s autopsy and depicted, from different angles, the location, severity, and extent of Cason’s injuries, including the injuries to his chest and defensive wounds to his hands.

2024It is true that “[t]his Court presumes, in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, that the trial court properly exercised its discretion pursuant to OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21.” Holmes v. State, 306 Ga. 524, 528 (2) ( 832 SE2d 392 ) (2019); see also Hodges v. State, 309 Ga. 590, 592 (2) ( 847 SE2d 538 ) (2020).

2024It is true that “[t]his Court presumes, in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, that the trial court properly exercised its discretion pursuant to OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21.” Holmes v. State, 306 Ga. 524, 528 (2) ( 832 SE2d 392 ) (2019); see also Hodges v. State, 309 Ga. 590, 592 (2) ( 847 SE2d 538 ) (2020).

2024“However, when the record reflects that the trial court reviewed the motion for new trial only for legal sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court has failed to exercise such discretion.” Holmes, 306 Ga. at 528 (2); accord Schmeelk v. State, 358 Ga. App. 364 , 368 (2) ( 855 SE2d 368 ) (2021).

2024“However, when the record reflects that the trial court reviewed the motion for new trial only for legal sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court has failed to exercise such discretion.” Holmes, 306 Ga. at 528 (2); accord Schmeelk v. State, 358 Ga. App. 364 , 368 (2) ( 855 SE2d 368 ) (2021).

2024See also Massey v. State, 346 Ga. App. 233, 236 (2) ( 816 SE2d 100 ) (2018) (we presume the trial court is aware of its discretion unless the record shows otherwise). 2.

2024See also Massey v. State, 346 Ga. App. 233, 236 (2) ( 816 SE2d 100 ) (2018) (we presume the trial court is aware of its discretion unless the record shows otherwise). 2.

2024See also Brock v. State, 319 Ga. 765, 772 (2) (b) ( 906 SE2d 739 ) (2024) (“[T]he merits of a trial court’s discretion on 3 Weston does not argue that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction as a matter of federal constitutional due process under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2024See also Brock v. State, 319 Ga. 765, 772 (2) (b) ( 906 SE2d 739 ) (2024) (“[T]he merits of a trial court’s discretion on 3 Weston does not argue that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction as a matter of federal constitutional due process under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2021Because it is clear from the record “that the trial court exercised its discretion as the thirteenth juror in denying [the] motion for a new trial[, t]his claim of error 7 fails.” Blackshear v. State, 309 Ga. 479, 486 (2) ( 847 SE2d 317 ) (2020) (punctuation omitted). 4.

2021Because it is clear from the record “that the trial court exercised its discretion as the thirteenth juror in denying [the] motion for a new trial[, t]his claim of error 7 fails.” Blackshear v. State, 309 Ga. 479, 486 (2) ( 847 SE2d 317 ) (2020) (punctuation omitted). 4.

2021Thus, the order “clearly indicates that [the court] properly performed its duty to exercise its discretion and weigh the evidence in consideration of the general grounds.”25 And as our Supreme Court has previously explained, 23 Wiggins, 330 Ga. App. at 210 (c) (punctuation omitted); accord White, 293 Ga. at 524-25 (2). 24 Holmes, 306 Ga. at 528 (2) (punctuation omitted). 25 Hamlette v. State, 353 Ga. App. 640 , 650 (5) ( 839 SE2d 161 ) (2020); see Allen v. State, 296 Ga. 738, 741 (2) ( 770 SE2d 625 ) (2015) (holding that record indicated trial court properly exercised its discretion under OCGA

2021Thus, the order “clearly indicates that [the court] properly performed its duty to exercise its discretion and weigh the evidence in consideration of the general grounds.”25 And as our Supreme Court has previously explained, 23 Wiggins, 330 Ga. App. at 210 (c) (punctuation omitted); accord White, 293 Ga. at 524-25 (2). 24 Holmes, 306 Ga. at 528 (2) (punctuation omitted). 25 Hamlette v. State, 353 Ga. App. 640 , 650 (5) ( 839 SE2d 161 ) (2020); see Allen v. State, 296 Ga. 738, 741 (2) ( 770 SE2d 625 ) (2015) (holding that record indicated trial court properly exercised its discretion under OCGA

2021Thus, the order “clearly indicates that [the court] properly performed its duty to exercise its discretion and weigh the evidence in consideration of the general grounds.”25 And as our Supreme Court has previously explained, 23 Wiggins, 330 Ga. App. at 210 (c) (punctuation omitted); accord White, 293 Ga. at 524-25 (2). 24 Holmes, 306 Ga. at 528 (2) (punctuation omitted). 25 Hamlette v. State, 353 Ga. App. 640 , 650 (5) ( 839 SE2d 161 ) (2020); see Allen v. State, 296 Ga. 738, 741 (2) ( 770 SE2d 625 ) (2015) (holding that record indicated trial court properly exercised its discretion under OCGA

2020Cf. Jones v. State, 339 Ga. App. 95, 104 (4) ( 791 SE2d 625 ) (2016) (holding that because nothing in the trial court’s order indicated it did not consider the defendant’s conviction as the “thirteenth juror,” this Court will not presume otherwise). 15 White, 293 Ga. at 525-26 (2) (punctuation omitted); see Holmes, 306 Ga. at 528 (2) (holding that because the trial court failed to exercise its discretion under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 in considering defendant’s motion for new trial, judgment must be vacated and the case remanded for proper consideration); Whitmire, 343 Ga. App. at 288 (2) (sa

2020Cf. Jones v. State, 339 Ga. App. 95, 104 (4) ( 791 SE2d 625 ) (2016) (holding that because nothing in the trial court’s order indicated it did not consider the defendant’s conviction as the “thirteenth juror,” this Court will not presume otherwise). 15 White, 293 Ga. at 525-26 (2) (punctuation omitted); see Holmes, 306 Ga. at 528 (2) (holding that because the trial court failed to exercise its discretion under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 in considering defendant’s motion for new trial, judgment must be vacated and the case remanded for proper consideration); Whitmire, 343 Ga. App. at 288 (2) (sa

2020Cf. Jones v. State, 339 Ga. App. 95, 104 (4) ( 791 SE2d 625 ) (2016) (holding that because nothing in the trial court’s order indicated it did not consider the defendant’s conviction as the “thirteenth juror,” this Court will not presume otherwise). 15 White, 293 Ga. at 525-26 (2) (punctuation omitted); see Holmes, 306 Ga. at 528 (2) (holding that because the trial court failed to exercise its discretion under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 in considering defendant’s motion for new trial, judgment must be vacated and the case remanded for proper consideration); Whitmire, 343 Ga. App. at 288 (2) (sa

2019Wilson v. State, 302 Ga. 106, 108 (II) (a) ( 805 SE2d 98 ) (2017).

2019Wilson v. State, 302 Ga. 106, 108 (II) (a) ( 805 SE2d 98 ) (2017).

2016See Gray v. State, 298 Ga. 885, 886 ( 785 SE2d 517 ) (2016); Slaton v. State, 296 Ga. 122, 125 ( 765 SE2d 332 ) (2014).

2016See Gray v. State, 298 Ga. 885, 886 ( 785 SE2d 517 ) (2016); Slaton v. State, 296 Ga. 122, 125 ( 765 SE2d 332 ) (2014).

2013See Williams, supra, 242 Ga. at 303 (grant of a new trial on the discretionary ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is not a finding that the evidence is legally insufficient).