Dennis v. Grimes
| Decision Date | 09 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 21165,21165 |
| Citation | 118 S.E.2d 923,216 Ga. 671 |
| Parties | Robert Lee DENNIS v. T. Ralph GRIMES, Sheriff. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Scott Walters, Jr., East Point, Guy R. Dunn, Wavelyn E. Smith, Hapeville, for plaintiff in error.
Paul Webb, Solicitor-General, Charles A. Williams, Eugene L. Tiller, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is a habeas corpus case. The petitioner was indicted for murder by shooting the deceased with a pistol, and for a misdemeanor for carrying a pistol on his person without a license and concealed. He filed a demand for trial on both of these indictments and after a trial for murder was convicted, which judgment was reversed by this court in Dennis v. State, 216 Ga. 206, 115 S.E.2d 527. Upon the return of the remittitur during the July term 1960, neither of the above cases was placed on the trial calendar, although a jury was impaneled to try criminal cases during that term. Thereafter, the cases were placed on the trial calendar at the September term, 1960, at which time the defendant was present announcing ready, but on motion of the State the cases were taken off the calendar and not thereafter replaced during the term. Thereafter, the petitioner brought this action, alleging that he should be discharged because two regular terms of court had convened and adjourned since his demand for trial, and he was absolutely discharged and acquitted of the charges for this reason. After a hearing the court remanded his custody back to the sheriff of the county. The exception is to this judgment. Held:
1. If at a term when a demand for trial is operative, a trial be had resulting in a verdict of guilty, and a new trial thereafter be granted, the defendant is not required to again demand a trial, since the State is already on notice of the demand, and if two regular terms go by in which juries are impaneled and qualified, and he is not tried, 'he shall be absolutely discharged and acquitted of the offense' not affecting his life in which a demand for trial has been made. Code § 27-1901; Hunley v. State, 105 Ga. 636, 31 S.E. 543; Gordon v. State, 106 Ga. 121, 32 S.E. 32; Stripland v. State, 115 Ga. 578, 41 S.E. 987; Dublin v. State, 126 Ga. 580, S.E. 487.
2. While the demand for trial was filed on October 9, 1959, and the new trial in the murder case was granted upon the remittitur of this court being made the order of the lower court during the July term, 1960, which tolled the statute during said period as to that charge, nevertheless, the demand for trial in the misdemeanor case required a trial at the next succeeding regular term thereafter, provided at both terms there were juries impaneled and qualified to try the accused, and the petitioner is entitled to discharge and acquittal of the misdemeanor offense, since he has not been tried as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. State
...motion for discharge and acquittal in Ramirez v. State, 196 Ga.App. 11, 395 S.E.2d 315, supra, adopting guidance from Dennis v. Grimes, 216 Ga. 671, 672(1), 118 S.E.2d 923, in holding "that the demand would run again in its entirety for retrial." Id. 196 Ga.App. at 11(2), 12, 395 S.E.2d 315......
-
Henry v. James
...the minutes of the court. This anomalous development is the result of reliance in Ramirez on inopportune language in Dennis v. Grimes, 216 Ga. 671(2), 118 S.E.2d 923 (1961), where this court stated that "the new trial ... was granted upon the remittitur of this court being made the order of......
-
State v. Varner, S03A0936.
...was applicable, and the denial of discharge and acquittal was reversed. 3. While not relied on in Silvey, in Dennis v. Grimes, 216 Ga. 671(1), 118 S.E.2d 923 (1961), disapproved on other grounds in Henry v. James, supra, 264 Ga. 527(1b), 449 S.E.2d 79 (1994), this Court held that a defendan......
-
State v. Bowman
...or grant of new trial was filed, or in the next regular term of court." (citation & footnote omitted)); see also Dennis v. Grimes , 216 Ga. 671, 672 (1), 118 S.E.2d 923 (1961) (holding that a defendant who is granted a new trial "is not required to again demand a trial [because] the State i......