Man Appeals Disorderly Conduct Conviction In Sandy Springs

SANDY SPRINGS, GA — The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday will hear oral arguments in a case of a man who alleges his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted of disorderly conduct by a Sandy Springs Municipal Court judge in 2014.

The court will take up the writ of habeas corpus petition Nov. 5 from Nicholas Hart, who alleges his right to a jury trial was denied by the judge and that he was represented by an "incompetent lawyer," a summary provided by the state Supreme Court said.

This case stems from a February 2014 encounter between Hart and a woman whose dogs "soiled" his parking lot at 7295 Roswell Road, the summary notes. Hart was charged with two counts of disorderly conduct, a city ordinance violation, following the encounter, and he filed a demand for a jury trial in Municipal Court.

That request was denied in August 2014, and Hart appeared before a judge during a bench trial. In September 2014, Hart was convicted of disorderly conduct, and was sentenced to spend 30 days in jail and 12 months on probation. He was also ordered to pay a $2,000 fine.

Hart's attorney filed an appeal to Fulton County Superior Court, but the lawyer "failed to follow the proper procedures and the superior court judge dismissed Hart’s petition," according to the summary.

In July 2015, the defendant's attorney filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a procedure allowing defendants to show their conviction and/or sentence is unconstitutional) against Municipal Court Judge Joseph Burford and local officials in Fulton County Superior Court. The Fulton County judge rejected that petition, so Hart hired a new attorney and has filed an appeal with the Georgia Supreme Court.

(For more news like this, find your local Patch here. If you have an iPhone, click here to get the free Patch iPhone app; download the free Patch Android app here)

"Not only did counsel’s actions deny appellant (i.e. Hart) a review of the sufficiency of his conviction and his right to a trial by jury, but the trial court erroneously found that the conduct of the trial court in refusing to grant appellant’s motion for jury trial was appropriate,” Hart’s attorney, Robert Citronberg, argues. “Sadly, appellant could not ever get his case before a jury.”

The city of Sandy Springs notes Hart failed to meet his burden of proof by showing "clear and convincing evidence" that the actions of his first attorney were substandard. It also challenges Hart's assertion that since the city's disorderly conduct ordinance is "identical" to Georgia's misdemeanor disorderly conduct law, he was guaranteed a right to jury trial.

“As the Georgia Supreme Court has long held, ‘offenses against ordinances passed in the exercise of the express or implied powers vested in Municipal Corporations…are not crimes to which the constitutional jury right applies,’” City Attorney Dan Lee notes in his response. “Thus, since the legislature expressly authorized municipalities enact their own disorderly conduct ordinance violation, the City of Sandy Springs was authorized to create one, for which the jury trial right would not apply.”

Image via Shutterstock