Rowland v. State, 46411
| Decision Date | 01 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 46411,No. 1,46411,1 |
| Citation | 184 S.E.2d 494,124 Ga.App. 494 |
| Parties | Harvey D. ROWLAND v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Adams, O'Neal & Hemingway, Thomas W. Talbot, Manley, F. Brown, Macon, for appellant.
Fred M. Hasty, Macon, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his suspended sentence and probation, and sentencing him to confinement in the State penitentiary for a period of three years. He enumerates as error denial of his motion for continuance, failure to dismiss the second rule nisi, that the terms of the suspended sentence were vague, ambiguous and indefinite, and that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to show any violation of probation.
1. 'The granting of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and this court will not interfere unless it is clearly shown that he has abused his discretion.' Daniels v. State, 219 Ga. 381, 384, 133 S.E.2d 357, 360. Defendant's motion for continuance is based on insufficient notice of the second rule nisi hearing. Defendant appellant was served with a copy of the new rule five days prior to the hearing and there appears to be some conflict as to whether notice was given by telephone to defendant's attorney's office approximately five days prior to the hearing. Appellant's counsel did receive written notice one day before the hearing, represented the appellant at the hearing, and it appears that he was familiar with the charges made in the rule nisi since he had previously represented appellant in cases involving the same circumstances. We cannot say that this denied defendant his right of due process of law. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant defendant's motion for continuance. It was not error to deny defendant's motion to dismiss the second rule nisi. He contends this places him twice in jeopardy contrary to §§ 26-506(b) and 26-507(a)(2) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. A hearing to determine if a person has violated the terms of his suspended sentence is Dutton v. Willis, 223 Ga. 209, 154 S.E.2d 221. Enumeration of errors 1 and 2 are without merit.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyler v. State
...§ 16-6-8(a)(2) and (3).1 For this reason, condition four also is sufficiently specific and definite. See, e.g., Rowland v. State, 124 Ga.App. 494, 495(2), 184 S.E.2d 494 (1971) (upholding probation condition prohibiting probationer from "indulging in any unlawful, disrespectful or disorderl......
-
Christy v. State
...misconduct, the appellate court will not interfere with revocation unless there has been manifest abuse of discretion. Rowland v. State, 124 Ga.App. 494(3), 184 S.E.2d 494; Turner v. State, 119 Ga.App. 117, 166 S.E.2d 582.' Boston v. State, 128 Ga.App. 576, 197 S.E.2d 504. The evidence in t......
-
Mingo v. State, 59660
... ... Rowland v. State, 124 Ga.App. 494(3), 184 ... S.E.2d 494; Turner v. State, 119 Ga.App. 117, 166 S.E.2d 582." Boston v. State, 128 Ga.App. 576, 197 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Clackler v. State
...misconduct, the appellate court will not interfere with revocation unless there has been manifest abuse of discretion. Rowland v. State, 124 Ga.App. 494(3), 184 S.E.2d 494; Turner v. State, 119 Ga.App. 117, 166 S.E.2d 582.' Boston v. State, 128 Ga.App. 576, 197 S.E.2d 504. The trial judge w......