Bishop v. State, 43170
| Decision Date | 15 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 43170,No. 2,43170,2 |
| Citation | 159 S.E.2d 477,117 Ga.App. 93 |
| Parties | Joe Lee BISHOP v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joe Lee Bishop, pro se, Wendell J. Helton, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Sol. Gen., J. Walter LeCraw, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was tried for the offense of robbery on an indictment containing four counts, and on May 7, 1947 the jury rendered a verdict of guilty on each count and on the following day he was sentenced by the trial judge on each count. On the day of his sentences he filed motions for new trial on each count which were dismissed on September 19, 1947, by the attorneys for defendant with the approval of the trial judge. On April 10, 1967, the defendant filed what he termed an 'extraordinary motion to vacate and set aside judgment, conviction, and sentence.' On May 17, 1967, the court overruled the motion. Held:
1. A motion to set aside the judgment and sentence is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case (Waits v. State, 204 Ga. 295(1), 49 S.E.2d 492; Roseberry v. State, 81 Ga.App. 790, 60 S.E.2d 187; McDonald v. State, 126 Ga. 536, 55 S.E. 235; Riley v. State, 107 Ga.App. 639(3), 131 S.E.2d 124.
2. Any matter which could have been complained of in the original motion for new trial will not constitute ground for an extraordinary motion (Frank v. State, 142 Ga. 741(3, 4), 83 S.E. 645 L.R.A. 1915D, 817; King v. State, 174 Ga. 432(2), 163 S.E. 168. Extraordinary motions for new trial cannot be based upon matters that were known by the movant in time to have stated them in his original motion or that could have been discovered in time by proper diligence. Malone v. Hopkins, 49 Ga. 221. See also Sumner v. Sumner, 186 Ga. 390(1), 197 S.E. 833. Treating the motion as an extraordinary motion for new trial, and applying the above rulings thereto, we must hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to issue the rule nisi and in dismissing the motion, there being no showing of proper diligence on the part of the defendant. 'When an alleged extraordinary motion for new trial is entirely without merit, it is proper for the judge to decline to entertain the same and to refuse to grant a rule nisi thereon.' Harris v. Roan, 119 Ga. 379(5), 46 S.E. 433; Cox v. State, 19 Ga.App. 283(2), 91 S.E. 422; Loomis v. Edwards, 80 Ga.App. 396, 56 S.E.2d 183.' Fulford v. State, 222 Ga. 846, 152 S.E.2d 845. See also Williams v. State, 211 Ga. 763, 88 S.E.2d 376; McRae v. State, 116 Ga.App. 407(1), 157 S.E.2d 646.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowen v. State
...157 S.E.2d 32; McRae v. State, 116 Ga.App. 407(1), 157 S.E.2d 646; Moore v. State, 116 Ga.App. 774, 158 S.E.2d 926; Bishop v. State, 117 Ga.App. 93(1), 159 S.E.2d 477. Although all cited cases refer to instances where a defendant brought the motion to set aside, the rule would not change wh......
-
Womack v. State
...However, "[a] motion to set aside the judgment and sentence is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case[.]" Bishop v. State , 117 Ga. App. 93, 93 (1), 159 S.E.2d 477 (1968). Moreover, on appeal, Womack explicitly seeks a new trial. Accordingly, we construe his motion as an extraordinary......
-
Waye v. State, 32489
...judgment) is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case. Beavers v. State, 117 Ga.App. 801, 161 S.E.2d 891 (1968); Bishop v. State, 117 Ga.App. 93, 159 S.E.2d 477 (1968). In Sims v. State of Ga., 230 Ga. 589, 590, 198 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1973), the defendant filed a pro se pleading entitled ......
-
Lee v. State, 46193
...Ga.App. 79, 33 S.E.2d 23; Harris v. State, 225 Ga. 458, 169 S.E.2d 331), or an extraordinary motion for new trial. See Bishop v. State, 117 Ga.App. 93, 159 S.E.2d 477; Huguley v. State, 120 Ga.App. 332, 170 S.E.2d 450. Furthermore, under the ruling of Hatfield v. State, 119 Ga.App. 110, 166......