Baseler v. State
| Decision Date | 12 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A0798,A94A0798 |
| Citation | 213 Ga.App. 822,446 S.E.2d 250 |
| Parties | BASELER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Burkett, Schneider & Mumford, Robert F. Mumford, Conyers, for appellant.
Cheryl F. Custer, Dist. Atty., S. Dabney Yarbrough, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
HAROLD R. BANKE, Senior Appellate Judge.
The appellant, James Paul Baseler, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress based on an illegal stop of his vehicle, and in admitting into evidence an inculpatory statement he made at the time of his arrest.
1. The trial court properly denied the appellant's motion to suppress because it was untimely filed only six days before trial in the matter. Van Huynh v. State, 258 Ga. 663, 664(2), 373 S.E.2d 502 (1988).
2. The arresting officer was allowed to testify that just as he was placing the appellant under arrest for driving under the influence, the appellant acknowledged that he was impaired and pleaded with the officer not to arrest him. The trial court found the inculpatory statement to be properly admissible as a spontaneous remark made before the officer could advise him of his Miranda rights.
A trial court's findings as to factual determinations relating to the voluntariness of a defendant's statement will be upheld on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Mills v. State, 210 Ga.App. 217, 435 S.E.2d 736 (1993). The trial court's findings in the instant case were not clearly erroneous, and the appellant's inculpatory statement thus was properly admitted into evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geoffrion v. State
...was overruled. (a) The trial court did not err in refusing to hold a hearing on defendant's tardy motion to suppress. Baseler v. State, 213 Ga.App. 822(1), 446 S.E.2d 250. (b) Contrary to defendant's contentions, the trial court clearly overruled defendant's motion in limine, after a hearin......
-
Quinn v. State, A96A0219
...Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.1 and case law predating this rule, construing OCGA § 17-5-30, require this conclusion. Baseler v. State, 213 Ga.App. 822, 446 S.E.2d 250; Davis v. State, 203 Ga.App. 315, 316(3), 416 S.E.2d We also agree that the first motion to suppress evidence was not suff......
-
McKibbons v. State, A94A2796
...written motion. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress because it was untimely filed. Baseler v. State, 213 Ga.App. 822(1), 446 S.E.2d 250. 3. In his third enumeration, defendant contends his "right to cross examination was constitutionally impaired such as to......
-
Stanley v. State, A00A0439.
...Ga.App. 599-600, 370 S.E.2d 848 (1988). 5. Hatcher v. State, 224 Ga.App. 747, 748-749(1), 482 S.E.2d 443 (1997); Baseler v. State, 213 Ga.App. 822(1), 446 S.E.2d 250 (1994). 6. Hatcher, 7. See Montgomery v. State, 204 Ga.App. 534, 536(2), 420 S.E.2d 67 (1992) (motion to suppress untimely wh......