Phillips v. State, 27136

Decision Date28 June 1972
Docket NumberNo. 27136,27136
Citation229 Ga. 313,191 S.E.2d 61
PartiesC. A. PHILLIPS v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Alfred D. Fears, Jackson, Byrd, Groover & Buford, Denmark Groover, Jr., Macon, for appellant.

Edward McGarity, Dist. Atty., McDonough, Pollack, Sorrells & Hearn, George J. Hearn, III, William R. Childers, Jr., Monroe, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

HAWES, Justice.

'Constitutional questions which have been finally and conclusively determined by decisions of this court cannot again be urged so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this court. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to apply such decisions where review is sought of the same constitutional question. In such instances the Court of Appeals, and not the Supreme Court, has jurisdiction of the writ of error. Morgan County v. Craig, 213 Ga. 742, 101 S.E.2d 714.' Continental Cas. Co. et al. v. Bump, 218 Ga. 187, 190, 126 S.E.2d 783, 785. In the instant appeal the asserted basis for the jurisdiction of the appeal in the Supreme Court is that the appeal draws into question the constitutionality of a statute of this State. From the brief of appellant, it appears that he seeks to question the constitutionality of Code § 89-9907 which makes malpractice in office by any ordinary member of any board of commissioners, county judge, or justice of the peace a crime punishable as a misdemeanor and by removal from office. The basis of the attack is that the expression, 'malpractice in office,' is too vague, indefinite and uncertain to inform one charged with the offense with sufficient specificity as to the acts constituting a violation of that section so as to meet the constitutional requirements of due process. Counsel requests that we review and overrule the full bench decision of Cargile v. State, 194 Ga. 20(2), 20 S.E.2d 416 which decided this issue adversely to appellant's contentions. In the case of Steele v. State, 227 Ga. 653, 656, 182 S.E.2d 475 which was argued before this court at the April term, 1971, and decided on June 2, 1971, the identical question and request was urged by the appellant there and rejected by this court. Under the principles first announced, the other questions sought to be presented by the appeal can be decided by the Court of Appeals by the mere application of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution and the Code section to the facts as shown by the evidence. The Court of Appeals and not this court has jurisdiction of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Bowles v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 20, 1983
    ...and is no longer an issue in this case. See in this connection Monroe v. State, 250 Ga. 30, 295 S.E.2d 512, supra; Phillips v. State, 229 Ga. 313, 191 S.E.2d 61; Ayers v. Mobley, 248 Ga. 869, 287 S.E.2d 4; Farmer v. Farmer, 147 Ga.App. 387, 389(2), 249 S.E.2d 106. It is, therefore, presumed......
  • Bishop v. State, 72510
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 3, 1986
    ...principles on questions which have been finally and conclusively determined by decisions of the Supreme Court. Phillips v. State, 229 Ga. 313, 191 S.E.2d 61. Pretermitting the issue of whether the former decision of this court on the first appeal is res judicata as to all matters raised or ......
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 2020
    ...265 (2019) ]. The remaining issues being evidentiary in nature, [the Supreme] Court is without jurisdiction. See Phillips v. State , 229 Ga. 313, 191 S.E.2d 61 (1972). This case is therefore transferred to the Court of Appeals. (Emphasis supplied.)"[T]he Supreme Court's determination in its......
  • Atlanta Independent School System v. Lane
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1996
    ...would be within our exclusive jurisdiction, that constitutional issue may already have been resolved by this court. Phillips v. State, 229 Ga. 313, 191 S.E.2d 61 (1972). Also, this court does not have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over a case where the constitutional issue asserted on ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT