Gonzalez v. State

NOTICE: This opinion is 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 version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: October 15, 2025

S25A1036. GONZALEZ v. THE STATE.

ELLINGTON, Justice.

Miguel Angel Gonzalez appeals his convictions for felony

murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of

Marcus Gilead and the attempted armed robbery of Ciavy Wiles.1

1 The crimes occurred on February 10, 2020. On December 4, 2020, a

Gwinnett County grand jury indicted Gonzalez, Abraham Quintanar, and
Sebastian Resendiz-Garcia for two counts of felony murder, two counts of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, two counts of criminal attempt to
commit armed robbery, and one count of possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony, and indicted Quintanar alone for possession of a
handgun by a person under the age of 18 years. Quintanar was tried
separately and convicted of felony murder and other offenses, and we affirmed
his convictions on appeal. See Quintanar v. State, 322 Ga. 61 (2025). At a jury
trial that ended on June 14, 2024, Gonzalez was found guilty on all counts. On
that same day, Gonzalez was sentenced to serve life in prison with the
possibility of parole for felony murder predicated on the aggravated assault of
Gilead, a consecutive five-year prison term for possession of a firearm during
the commission of a felony, and a concurrent 30-year prison term for the
attempted armed robbery of Wiles. The other felony murder count was vacated
by operation of law, and the remaining counts were merged into the crimes for
which Gonzalez was sentenced. Gonzalez filed a timely motion for new trial,
and he was appointed new counsel. The trial court denied Gonzalez’s motion
The sole issue that Gonzalez raises on appeal is the constitutional

sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. Because that

issue has been abandoned on appeal, we affirm.

“Any enumerated error or subpart of an enumerated error not

supported by argument, citations to authority, and citations to the

record shall be deemed abandoned.” Ga. Sup. Ct. R. 22(1). Thus,

litigants must “ensure that argument, citation to authority, and

citation to the record are all present to avoid having an enumeration

deemed abandoned.” Byrd v. State, 321 Ga. 222, 225 (2025).

Although Gonzalez quotes the standard of review, states the law of

party to a crime, and cites the record, he has not made any argument

whatsoever that the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to

support his convictions.2 Consequently, Gonzalez has not provided

for new trial on March 18, 2025. Gonzalez filed a timely notice of appeal, and
the case was docketed in this Court to the August 2025 term and submitted for
a decision on the briefs.
2 To the contrary, Gonzalez’s appellate brief shows that the record

contains evidence to support each of his convictions. Appellate counsel explains
that she found no errors of law after a thorough review of the record but that,
because Gonzalez desired an appeal, she has presented citations to the record
and sought a sufficiency review out of respect for Gonzalez’s right to appeal.
We note that appellate counsel could not have filed a motion for withdrawal of

2
us “with any meaningful opportunity to analyze why the record

evidence does not support his convictions.” Id. at 226 (holding that

the appellant abandoned the sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue

because, although he cited some authority, included record citations,

and asserted the constitutional insufficiency of the evidence, he

nevertheless failed to make any specific argument in that regard).

Moreover, although Gonzalez sets out the elements of each offense

for which he was convicted, he has failed to “articulate how and why

the evidence was not sufficient, given the elements of and defenses

presented with respect to each conviction being challenged on

sufficiency grounds.” Id. at 227. Accordingly, the sole issue on appeal

is deemed abandoned, and the judgment therefore must be affirmed.

See Ga. Sup. Ct. R. 22(1); Byrd, 321 Ga. at 227; Allen v. State, 296

Ga. 428 (2015).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

appointed counsel under Anders v. California, 386 US 738 (1967), on the
ground that an appeal would be frivolous. This Court has previously rejected
the Anders procedure because such a motion is “unduly burdensome in that it
tends to force the [C]ourt to assume the role of counsel for the appellant.”
Huguley v. State, 253 Ga. 709, 710 (1985).
3