State v. Hollomon, 49510
Decision Date | 09 July 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 49510,49510,2 |
Citation | 208 S.E.2d 167,132 Ga.App. 304 |
Parties | The STATE v. J. C. HOLLOMON et al |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joseph H. Briley, Dist. Atty., Gray, for appellant.
Byrd, Groover & Buford, Denmark Groover, Jr., Macon, Frank D. Farrar, Jr., Gray, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendants, members of the Jones County Board of Commissioners, were convicted of malpractice in office Code § 89-9907. The trial judge sentenced them to misdemeanor punishment and provided that they be 'hereby removed from office' as county commissioners. The defendants filed a motion for new trial and supersedeas was granted. The state then filed a 'motion for execution of sentence,' alleging that the provision of § 89-9907 for removal from office is not a portion of the punishment prescribed for a misdemeanor offense, hence was not stayed by the supersedeas, and praying that the judge order the defendants to vacate their offices as members of the board instanter and declare their posts vacant. Following a hearing, the trial judge overruled the state's motion, subject to the condition that, within 5 days, the defendants 'shall post a bond with good and sufficient security payable to Jones County, Georgia in the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) conditioned on their future faithful performance of their duties and the return of any sums received by them from Jones County in the form of salaries or other compensations or allowances which shall be determined to have been illegally received . . .' The State appeals from the overruling of its motion, which order was certified for immediate review. The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Held:
Prior to 1973, there was no authority for appeals by the state in criminal cases. Code Ann. § 6-1001a (Ga.L.1973, pp. 297, 298) provides as follows: The order appealed from in the case sub judice is not one of the instances in which the state is granted the right of appeal in criminal cases under the provisions of § 6-1001a, supra.
Nor is the order made appealable by virtue of the certificate for immediate review. Code Ann. § 6-1002a (Ga.L.1973, pp. 297, 298) provides as follows: 'Other than from an order, decision or judgment sustaining a motion to suppress evidence illegally seized, in any appeal under the provisions of this Chapter where the order, decision or judgment is not final, it shall be necessary that the trial judge certify within 10 days of entry thereof that such order, decision or judgment is of such importance to the case that an immediate review should be had.' (Emphasis supplied.) Although it might be argued that § 6-1002a provides for certification of any non-final order, decision or judgment, without regard to those enumerated in § 6-1001a, supra, we do not find this to be the legislative intent. § 6-1002a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Martin
...See Glenn v. State, 271 Ga. 604(2), 523 S.E.2d 13 (1999); Berky v. State, 266 Ga. 28, 30, 463 S.E.2d 891 (1995); State v. Hollomon, 132 Ga.App. 304, 306, 208 S.E.2d 167 (1974). But see also State v. Strickman, 253 Ga. 287, 319 S.E.2d 864 (1984) ("Assuredly, the right of appeal provided to t......
-
State v. Stuckey
...state to appeal in criminal cases is in derogation of prior law and must be strictly construed against the state. State v. Hollomon, 132 Ga.App. 304, 208 S.E.2d 167 (1974). However, desirable it may be to entertain an appeal in certain cases, if the state's appeal does not fit within one of......
-
Mingo v. State, 49794
...authority to enact laws placing conditions upon appeals.' Fife v. Johnston, 225 Ga. 447, 169 S.E.2d 167. See also State v. Hollomon, 132 Ga.App. 304, 306, 208 S.E.2d 167. In Jordan v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 343, 191 S.E.2d 530, our Supreme Court again construed Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV of the G......
-
State v. Warren
...to law. Prior to the passage of Code Ann. § 6-1001a, supra, the state had no right to appeal in a criminal case. In State v. Hollomon, 132 Ga.App. 304, 208 S.E.2d 167, this court held that § 6-1001a, being in derogation of pre-existing law, must be strictly construed against the state so as......