The Georgia Supreme Court issued an opinion on January 21, 2026, in *Burns v. State*, addressing appellant Anthony Alexander Burns' challenge to his 2024 felony murder conviction in connection with the death of Howard Winning. The case presents multiple constitutional and procedural claims that could affect the validity of Burns' life sentence without parole.
Burns was convicted of felony murder following the August 22, 2022, death of Howard Winning. A Columbia County grand jury indicted Burns on November 10, 2022, on three counts: malice murder, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and felony murder predicated on aggravated assault by strangulation. The charges reflect the serious nature of the alleged crime and the multiple legal theories under which prosecutors sought to hold Burns accountable.
During the trial held from February 26 to 29, 2024, the jury reached a split verdict that highlighted the complexity of the case. The jury found Burns guilty on both felony murder counts but was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the malice murder charge. This partial verdict allowed the prosecution to proceed with sentencing on the felony murder convictions while leaving the malice murder charge unresolved.
The sentencing phase proved particularly consequential for Burns due to his criminal history. The State, consistent with its pretrial notice to seek recidivist punishment, introduced certified copies of Burns' four prior felony convictions. Under Georgia's recidivist statutes, these prior convictions significantly enhanced the potential punishment. The trial court ultimately sentenced Burns to serve life in prison without the possibility of parole on the felony murder count predicated on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The second felony murder count was vacated by operation of law, while a mistrial was declared on the malice murder count, which was later placed on the dead docket.
Burns' post-trial proceedings began with a timely motion for new trial, which he later amended through new counsel. This procedural step is critical in Georgia criminal cases, as it preserves the right to appeal and allows defendants to raise claims of error that occurred during trial. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on February 10, 2025, to consider Burns' arguments for a new trial.
After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented during the hearing, the trial court entered an order on February 24, 2025, denying Burns' motion for new trial. This denial set the stage for the current appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, as Burns filed a timely notice of appeal following the adverse ruling.
On appeal, Burns raises several significant legal challenges that could potentially overturn his conviction. First, he argues that the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support his felony murder convictions. This claim challenges the fundamental adequacy of the prosecution's case and requires the appellate court to review whether a rational jury could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented.
Second, Burns contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for new trial on the "general grounds." General grounds typically refer to claims that the verdict was contrary to the evidence or that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. This argument essentially asks the appellate court to second-guess the trial court's assessment of the evidence's adequacy.
Burns also challenges the admission of his custodial statement, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing this evidence to be presented to the jury. Custodial statements are subject to strict constitutional requirements under *Miranda v. Arizona* and subsequent cases, and improper admission of such statements can constitute reversible error if the statements were obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.
Finally, Burns argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting autopsy photographs. The admission of graphic evidence, particularly autopsy photographs, must be balanced against the potential for unfair prejudice. Courts must determine whether the probative value of such evidence substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.
The Georgia Supreme Court's resolution of these issues could have broader implications for criminal procedure and evidence law in Georgia. The court's analysis of the constitutional sufficiency standard, the proper scope of trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings, and the appropriate limits on admitting custodial statements and graphic evidence will provide guidance for future cases.
The case was docketed to the August 2025 term and submitted for decision on the briefs, indicating that the court decided the matter without oral arguments. This procedural posture suggests that the court found the legal issues sufficiently clear from the written submissions to render a decision without additional argument.
The opinion carries the standard notice that it remains subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court's reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The final version will be published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports and will constitute the official text of the opinion.