Gardner v. State
| Decision Date | 16 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 43226,43226,2 |
| Parties | Joe L. GARDNER v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Enumeration of errors and brief not having been filed within ten days from the docketing of the appeal in this court, and appellant's motion requesting an extension of time for filing same having been considered and found to be without merit, the appeal is dismissed.
Houston White, Sr., Red Oak, George C. Mitchell, Dan C. Mitchell, Atlanta, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
This case involves an appeal by Joe Louis Gardner from the order and judgment overruling his amended motion for new trial. Defendant was represented on the trial by counsel. Verdict of guilty was found by the jury and sentence pronounced and entered pursuant thereto on March 29, 1967. Motion for new trial on the general grounds was filed on behalf of defendant by other and different counsel than the trial attorney. Thereafter an amendment to said motion for new trial was filed in said case, and the trial court on August 3, 1967, overruled the amended motion, denying a new trial. Defendant was represented on said motion as amended by counsel filing said motion and his associate attorney, both of whom, as appears from the record, filed the appeal on his bahalf.
The transcript, including the appeal, was transmitted to this court and the appeal docketed in this court on September 29, 1967.
No enumeration of errors was filed in this court within ten days from the date of the docketing of the appeal as required by Rule 13(a) of this court, as amended, or at any other time. Moreover, no brief has been filed in this court on behalf of the defendant.
The case was regularly set for hearing before the Second Division of this court on November 8, 1967, and on the call of the calendar the attorneys who had filed the appeal were not present, but still another attorney then and presently representing the appellant orally requested the court that he be afforded opportunity to present a written motion for leave to file at a later date enumeration of errors and brief in support thereof. Such leave was thereupon orally granted to file such written motion on or before December 15, 1967, and thereafter such leave was orally extended to and including January 29, 1968. On January 29, 1968, Houston White, Sr., Esquire, as attorney for appellant who had made such oral request, filed in this court written 'Motion to Extend Time for the Filing of Enumeration of Errors and Brief of Appellant in the above Styled Case,' in which motion the movant 'prays that his enumeration of errors and brief with respect thereto tendered simultaneously with this motion, be filed of record in this court, and that the merits thereof and this motion be considered and adjudicated, in this court.'
Movant in his motion contends that the rule of this court providing that enumeration of errors shall be filed within ten days from the date of the docketing of the appeal should, by construction or by virtue of the due process and equal protection of the laws provisions of the Federal and State Constitutions, require an exception to the rule where there has been inadequacy of representation or providential cause such as it is contended exists in the present case as shown by the affidavit of one of counsel who filed the appeal. These contentions are held to be without merit.
Leave of absence for thirty days was granted by the trial court on June 21, 1967, to the attorney who later filed the appeal, which leave expired July 21, 1967. The notice of appeal filed by this attorney bears date August 21, 1967, and was served by him personally on the solicitor general and on the trial judge on August 22, 1967, and filed in the trial court on August 23, 1967. Prior thereto said attorney had filed motion for new trial and an amendment to said motion and the motion for new trial as amended was, as hereinabove set forth, overruled on August 3, 1967.
Another leave of absence, a copy of which is attached to the motion, was granted to one of the attorneys for movant who had filed the notice of appeal (being the attorney to whom prior leave of absence had been granted, as above set out). This leave of absence was granted on November 7, 1967, by one of the judges of the trial court predicated upon the unsworn statement of a physician of date July 14, 1967.
These leaves of absence do not evidence providential cause. Providential cause includes such acts only as may be attributed to an act of God. Day, Gaskin & Co. v. Jeffords, 102 Ga. 714, 719, 29 S.E. 591.
The motion insofar as representation by counsel is concerned merely refers to 'inadequacy of representation.' This statement alone constitutes a mere conclusion. While the proposed enumeration of errors sought by movant to be filed and considered in the case and by this order the filing and consideration thereof as such is denied, nevertheless, in view of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ewing v. Whitehead, 43835
...156 S.E.2d 382; Rentfrow v. State, 116 Ga.App. 545, 158 S.E.2d 684; Hopkins v. State, 116 Ga.App. 548, 158 S.E.2d 320; Gardner v. State, 117 Ga.App. 262, 160 S.E.2d 271; Williams v. Holyoak, 118 Ga.App. 288, 163 S.E.2d 259. And being a ground of dismissal can not be waived by the opposing p......
-
Lee v. Hopper
...that the accused was virtually unrepresented or did not in any real or substantial sense have aid of counsel," Gardner v. State, 117 Ga.App. 262, 160 S.E.2d 271 (1968), the court found that Lee had failed to carry his burden of proof. Describing Lee's main contention as being that "he and h......
-
Cushway v. State Bar
...as well as the judge of the superior court, followed and applied the rules in the performance of their duties. Cf. Gardner v. State, 117 Ga.App. 262, 265, 160 S.E.2d 271. As to the meaning of proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in civil proceedings, see Schnell v. Toomer, 56 Ga. An analogous ......
-
Dyal v. State
...78 Ga. 801, 3 S.E. 628; Fambles v. State, 97 Ga. 625, 25 S.E. 365; Williams v. State, 192 Ga. 247, 15 S.E.2d 219; Gardner v. State, 117 Ga.App. 262, 264, 160 S.E.2d 271. Judgment JORDAN, P.J., and HALL, J., concur. ...