Thompson v. State, A00A2484.
| Decision Date | 19 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. A00A2484.,A00A2484. |
| Citation | 248 Ga. App. 74,544 S.E.2d 510 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles E. Thompson, pro se.
J. David Miller, District Attorney, Robert T. Gilchrist, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Charles Edward Thompson, pro se, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for modification of the terms and conditions of his probation, contending that he was not notified of certain conditions of his probation until nine years after he received a sentence of ten years imprisonment followed by five years probation. Thompson also contends that he was not given a determinate sentence concerning the terms and conditions of his probation. Because Thompson did not provide the trial court, nor this Court, with any evidence to support his contentions, we affirm.
Thompson did not submit anything to the trial court other than his motion to modify the terms and conditions of his probation. The trial court summarily denied the motion. Thompson has not attempted to supplement the record on appeal.1
"It is the duty of appellant to show error by the record and mere assertions of error in the brief do not suffice." (Punctuation omitted.) Grogan v. State.2 It is also appellant's obligation to complete the record by taking steps to ensure that transcripts are filed in a timely manner. See Miller v. State.3 Accordingly, we are compelled to affirm.
Judgment affirmed.
1. The State did supplement the record on appeal with a document listing Thompson's conditions of probation. The signature line for the defendant was blank, and a handwritten note indicated that Thompson refused to sign it.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniel v. Bremen-Bowdon Inv., Co.
... ... Thompson, for Appellant.Bovis Kyle & Burch, Adam Clay Grafton, Philip B. Hairston, Atlanta, for Appellee ... State Farm Employee Workers' Compensation , 348 Ga. App. 30, 36, 821 S.E.2d 132 (2018) (" Frett I "), ... ...
-
Thornton v. State
... ... State, 269 Ga. 797, 806-809(6), 505 S.E.2d 731 (1998) (concerning the issue of trial courts communicating with juries) ... 13. Thompson v. State, 248 Ga.App. 74, 75, 544 S.E.2d 510 (2001) ... 14. Bates v. State, 228 Ga.App. 140(2), 491 S.E.2d 200 (1997) ... 15. See generally Roberts ... ...
-
Brown v. State
...Robinson v. State, 278 Ga. 31, 35(3)(b), 597 S.E.2d 386 (2004). 7. 1 F.3d 159 (3d Cir.1993). 8. Id. at 166-167. 9. Thompson v. State, 248 Ga.App. 74, 75, 544 S.E.2d 510 (2001) (citation and punctuation omitted). 10. Williams v. Food Lion, 213 Ga.App. 865, 868, 446 S.E.2d 221 (1994). 11. See......
-
The State v. Padidham.
...what the trial court found, it would have been the State's burden to include the manual in the appellate record. Thompson v. State, 248 Ga.App. 74, 75, 544 S.E.2d 510 (2001). It was not Padidham's burden, as appellee, to show that the trial court summarized it correctly. But as the manual i......