Moore v. State

CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtBLACKBURN.
CitationMoore v. State, 514 S.E.2d 73, 236 Ga.App. 889 (Ga. App. 1999)
Decision Date11 March 1999
Docket NumberNo. A99A0371.,A99A0371.
PartiesMOORE v. The STATE.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Douglas C. Rogers, Thomasville, for appellant.

J. David Miller, District Attorney, Mark E. Mitchell, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

BLACKBURN, Judge.

Basil Lavoid Moore pled guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to ten years to serve and ten years probation. Moore appeals the trial court's sentence, contending that it erred in automatically refusing to sentence the defendant under the First Offender Act, OCGA § 42-8-60 et seq.1 As the facts in the record do not support Moore's enumeration of error, we affirm.

Moore contends that our decision in Jones v. State, 208 Ga.App. 472, 431 S.E.2d 136 (1993) requires reversal. In Jones, the trial judge stated, in response to a request for first offender treatment, "I have never granted a first offender. I take the position that once you get to the Superior Court, this is a big folks' court, and I don't use the first offender treatment. Never have, never intend to." (Punctuation omitted.) Id. We determined that, although the application of the first offender treatment is in the trial court's discretion, the trial judge's complete and uncompromising refusal to consider that option in any circumstance was a failure to exercise such discretion. Id. at 473, 431 S.E.2d 136. Therefore, we vacated the sentence and remanded the case with the direction that the trial court consider first offender treatment. Id.

In the present case, the record does not reflect a mechanical sentencing formula, compare Jones, nor does the record show a failure to consider first offender treatment. It merely reflects a decision not to sentence Moore under such discretionary sentencing provisions. We find no abuse of discretion.

Judgment affirmed.

BEASLEY, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur.

1. We note that the legislature amended OCGA § 17-10-6.1 effective March 27, 1998, to disallow the use of the first offender treatment for the conviction of a serious violent felony, including armed robbery. This amendment does not apply to Moore's sentence as the armed robbery was committed on September 18, 1997, and he entered his guilty plea on March 6, 1998.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
12 cases
  • Camaron v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 20, 2000
    ...under OCGA § 42-8-60 upon a defendant as a first offender lies entirely within the discretion of the trial court. Moore v. State, 236 Ga.App. 889, 890, 514 S.E.2d 73 (1999); Hardman v. Hardman, 185 Ga.App. 519, 520(4), 364 S.E.2d 645 (1988), overruled on other grounds, Pender v. Witcher, 19......
  • Johanson v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 11, 2003
    ...under OCGA § 42-8-60 upon a defendant as a first offender lies entirely within the discretion of the trial court. Moore v. State, 236 Ga.App. 889, 890, 514 S.E.2d 73 (1999). OCGA § 17-10-1(a)(1) grants to the sentencing judge the "power and authority to suspend or probate all or any part of......
  • Steele v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 16, 2004
    ...Ga.App. 796, 797-798(3), 554 S.E.2d 812 (2001); Camaron v. State, 246 Ga.App. 80, 82-83(2), 539 S.E.2d 577 (2000); Moore v. State, 236 Ga.App. 889, 890, 514 S.E.2d 73 (1999). Compare Wilcox v. State, 257 Ga.App. 519, 520, 571 S.E.2d 512 (2002) (trial court adopted "inflexible rule" regardin......
  • IN RE BSH
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 11, 1999
    ... ... OCGA § 5-6-38. See In the Interest of G.C.S., 186 Ga.App. 291, 367 S.E.2d 103 (1988); M.K.H. v. State" of Ga., 132 Ga.App. 143, 144, 207 S.E.2d 645 (1974) ...         2. English v. Milby, 233 Ga. 7, 9(1), 209 S.E.2d 603 (1974) ...      \xC2" ... ...
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Appellate Practice and Procedure - Roland F. L. Hall
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 62-1, September 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...(2008). 36. In the Interest of J.N., 302 Ga. App. at 634, 691 S.E.2d at 399 (quoting In the Interest ofB.S.H., 236 Ga. App. at 882, 514 S.E.2d at 73). 37. 302 Ga. App. 844, 691 S.E.2d 892 (2010). 38. Id. at 844, 691 S.E.2d at 893. 39. Id. 40. O.C.G.A. § 15-11-40(a)(3). 41. Id.; In the Inter......