Ivey v. State, A93A1798
| Decision Date | 06 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A1798,A93A1798 |
| Citation | 437 S.E.2d 810,210 Ga.App. 782 |
| Parties | IVEY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William C. Head, Atlanta, for appellant.
David C. Turk III, Dist. Atty., Durwood Davis, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The appellant, Kory Ivey, was charged with driving under the influence, operating a vehicle while in possession of an open container, and driving too fast for conditions. Prior to arraignment, Ivey filed a special demurrer to the accusation, contending that it did not comply with the signature requirement of OCGA § 17-7-71 because it contained the typewritten name of the district attorney rather than his actual signature.
At the inception of the trial, Ivey also filed a motion for discharge and acquittal, asserting that if his special demurrer were granted, subsequent prosecution would be barred. The trial court denied the special demurrer, but adjourned the proceeding when counsel for Ivey persuaded him that immediate, direct appeal of the denial was authorized. Ivey then filed a notice of appeal resulting in this direct appeal.
As noted in Gibson v. State, 187 Ga.App. 769, 371 S.E.2d 413 (1988), this court has previously upheld the validity of accusations which contained only the typewritten name of the solicitor, notwithstanding the statutory requirement that such be signed by the solicitor. In doing so, we reasoned that the typed name was the equivalent of a signature within the meaning of the statute. Hardeman v. State, 147 Ga.App. 120(1), 248 S.E.2d 189 (1978); Byrd v. State, 72 Ga.App. 840(1), 35 S.E.2d 385 (1945).
However, we may not address the issue now, because objections to overruling a special demurrer are reviewable by the appellate courts under the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34(b), or after conviction. See State v. Eubanks, 239 Ga. 483, 486, 238 S.E.2d 38 (1977). Accordingly, Ivey's direct appeal of this interlocutory matter must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hassell v. State
...State, 205 Ga.App. 209, 210-211, 422 S.E.2d 15 (1992). Therefore, the appeal in Case No. A93A1838 must be dismissed. Ivey v. State, 210 Ga.App. 782, 437 S.E.2d 810 (1993). Case No. A93A1839 2. The first enumeration in the direct appeal of the judgment entered on the jury's verdict is that t......
-
Stewart v. State, No. A00A0183
...charging instrument1 are reviewed only under the interlocutory procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34(b) or after a conviction. Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782, 783, 437 S.E.2d 810. We are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of these direct appeals from interlocutory orders, and so Case Nos. A......
-
Mitchell v. State
...v. Murphy, 322 Ga.App. 829, 831 (747 S.E.2d 21) (2013). That is not the case here and thus, the collateral order doctrine does not apply. See Ivey, 2 210 Ga.App. at 783 (order overruling a special demurrer reviewable under the interlocutory appeal procedures or after conviction). Accordingl......
-
Moore v. Food Associates, Inc.
... ... 944, Inc. v. Ga. State Bank, 198 Ga.App. 893, 894, 403 S.E.2d 466. But where the movant carries this burden, the ... ...