Perez-Castillo v. State, S02A0227.
| Decision Date | 15 April 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. S02A0227.,S02A0227. |
| Parties | PEREZ-CASTILLO v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Clark & Towne, Wystan B. Getz, Lawrenceville, for appellant.
Daniel J. Porter, Dist. Atty., Gregory D. McKeithen, Donald Geary, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Appellant Edwin Perez-Castillo appeals his conviction for trafficking in more than 50 pounds of marijuana.1 Following the jury's guilty verdict, the trial court entered its judgment of conviction and sentence. Appellant then filed alternative motions for a new trial or to arrest the judgment. In his motion to arrest the judgment, appellant raised for the first time several constitutional challenges to the criminal statute under which he was convicted, OCGA § 16-13-31. The trial court denied both of appellant's post-conviction motions, and he appeals to this Court, seeking to invoke our exclusive jurisdiction over unresolved questions surrounding the constitutionality of a statute.2 The State urges that this Court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and that it must be transferred to the Court of Appeals. We agree. It is well-established that a criminal defendant may not initiate a constitutional attack against a statute in either a motion for a new trial3 or a motion to arrest the judgement.4 A constitutional attack on a state statute "`must be made at the first opportunity, and it is too late to raise such a question after a guilty verdict has been returned by the jury.'"5 Because appellant waited until filing his motion to arrest the judgment—well after his conviction—to raise his constitutional challenges to OCGA § 16-13-31, those challenges must be deemed waived on appeal.
There being no other issues germane to this appeal that vest it within this Court's jurisdiction, it is hereby transferred to the Court of Appeals.
Transferred to the Court of Appeals.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brinkley v. State
...transferred such cases to the Court of Appeals for decision on any remaining enumerations of error. See Perez–Castillo v. State, 275 Ga. 124, 124–125, 562 S.E.2d 184 (2002) (holding that, when constitutional issues were not timely raised, “those challenges must be deemed waived on appeal” a......
-
Rooney v. State
...to resolve the constitutional issues. See Bell v. Austin, 278 Ga. 844, 607 S.E.2d 569 (2005). Compare Perez-Castillo v. State, 275 Ga. 124, 125, 562 S.E.2d 184 (2002). 2. As noted above, we have already held on certiorari that Rooney's claims were properly the subject of a motion to vacate ......
-
Amos v. State
...(2012) (constitutional attack on sentencing statute may not be raised for the first time on motion for new trial); Perez–Castillo v. State, 275 Ga. 124, 562 S.E.2d 184 (2002) (constitutional attack on substantive criminal statute must be raised before a verdict is returned); see also Koloko......
-
Robles v. State
...the first opportunity, and certainly before the verdicts; Robles's failure to do so waives the issues on appeal. Perez-Castillo v. State, 275 Ga. 124, 125, 562 S.E.2d 184 (2002); Hardeman v. State, 272 Ga. 361, 362, 529 S.E.2d 368 (2000); Kolokouris v. State, supra.. 10. In her motion to ar......