State v. Colquitt, 56391
| Decision Date | 18 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 56391,56391 |
| Citation | 249 S.E.2d 680,147 Ga.App. 627 |
| Parties | The STATE v. COLQUITT. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Hinson McAuliffe, Sol., Richard E. Stark, Asst. Sol., for appellant.
John P. Campbell, Atlanta, for appellee.
The appellee Colquitt faced an accusation charging him with theft by taking. On the day of trial, the prosecution was present with its witnesses. However, appellee did not appear when the case was called. He was ordered arrested for non-appearance. Shortly thereafter and while the witnesses were still present, Colquitt appeared but in a drunken condition. The defense counsel spoke to the prosecuting witness and ascertained that she wanted only the return of her radio (valued at about $20), and, having fulfilled this wish, no longer desired to prosecute the defendant Colquitt. The prosecutor was so informed. When the presiding judge was told of this development, he considered the case as having been passed and declined to reconsider the case that day. Colquitt was placed in jail overnight for non-appearance. On the following day, in accordance with local practice, Colquitt was brought back before a different judge and the state was represented by a different prosecutor. Local practice dictated that a defendant jailed for non-appearance must be brought before a judge within 24 hours for purpose of entering a guilty plea, thus disposing of the case, or for the entry of a not guilty plea in which event the prosecution normally was granted a continuance to reprepare its case for presentation. Apparently Colquitt appeared on the following day for purposes of entering a plea. However, before entering any plea, Colquitt's counsel moved that the case be dead docketed because the victim no longer desired to prosecute. The trial court, in a sharp exchange with the prosecuting attorney, ascertained that the victim had in fact expressed a desire not to prosecute and further that the state was not prepared to proceed on that day. The trial court therefore ordered the case to be placed on the dead docket. The parties below as well as the trial court have treated this action as a dismissal of the accusation. For purposes of this appeal only, we will accept this status of the case and treat the action of the trial court as a dismissal of the accusation. The announced reason for the dismissal was that the trial court was overburdened and did not have time to hear cases where there was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Csehy v. State
...any right of a party under the law.’ " State v. Perry , 261 Ga. App. 886, 887, 583 S.E.2d 909 (2003), quoting State v. Colquitt , 147 Ga. App. 627, 628, 249 S.E.2d 680 (1978). Accordingly, even in the course of controlling judicial proceedings or officers of the court, a trial judge may not......
-
Csehy v. State, A18A0381
...any right of a party under the law.’ " State v. Perry , 261 Ga. App. 886, 887, 583 S.E.2d 909 (2003), quoting State v. Colquitt , 147 Ga. App. 627, 628, 249 S.E.2d 680 (1978). Accordingly, even in the course of controlling judicial proceedings or officers of the court, a trial judge may not......
-
State v. Walker
...(2011) (citation and punctuation omitted); State v. Brooks , 301 Ga. App. 355, 359, 687 S.E.2d 631 (2009) ; State v. Colquitt , 147 Ga. App. 627, 628-629, 249 S.E.2d 680 (1978). While trial courts are authorized to dismiss accusations, this authority is not unlimited, and a trial court "abu......
-
State v. Brooks
...that in so doing a judge does not take away or abridge any right of a party under the law. (Citations omitted.) State v. Colquitt, 147 Ga.App. 627, 628-629, 249 S.E.2d 680 (1978). We have held that the trial court's power to control proceedings entails the discretion to dismiss criminal cha......