Whitton v. State
Decision Date | 04 April 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 69851,69851 |
Citation | 174 Ga.App. 634,331 S.E.2d 10 |
Parties | WHITTON v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Thomas B. Murphy, Stephen E. Garner, Bremen, for appellant.
Frank C. Winn, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Joseph L. Chambers, Elliott A. Shoenthal, Atlanta, amici curiae.
The defendant, Bobby Whitton, appeals his conviction of two counts of arson. Trial was held October 2-3, 1972, and on October 5, defendant was sentenced to serve one year on each count. A pre-printed, standard form motion for new trial was filed on October 5, alleging the general grounds. Included within the standard form was a rule nisi which was signed by the trial judge on October 5, 1972, but the date of the hearing was left blank. The order cited that: "Defendant having obtained a rule nisi in a motion for new trial," he was granted an appeal bond in the amount of $10,000.
The certificate of the court reporter shows the record was completed on January 6, 1974. No further action is indicated until September 10, 1984, when the state filed a motion to dismiss defendant's motion for new trial. A hearing was held on the state's motion on October 9, 1984, and the court's order indicates that the motion for new trial was denied on the basis that defendant "has not prosecuted this appeal." Thereafter the court granted "the relief sought by the state," which was dismissal. Although this terminology is conflicting, the hearing itself shows the holding of the court to be: "I'm going to dismiss your motion for new trial." Defendant brings this appeal, filed the date of the hearing and order dismissing his motion for new trial. Held:
Defendant enumerates as error the ruling of the trial court "to dismiss or deny the defendant's motion for new trial." The transcript of the hearing established that the defendant's motion for new trial was dismissed for a failure of the defendant to prosecute his appeal. Our Supreme Court has held that State v. Denson, 236 Ga. 239, 240, 223 S.E.2d 640. The record before us shows no purposeful delay by, or accrual of any advantage to, the defendant. The conviction is extant and the sentence still must be served if the conviction is affirmed on appeal. We have found no violation of any applicable statutory requirement and we will not presume error. It must be shown by the record.
Both the state and the appellant have an obligation to file the transcript in a felony case. State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212, 213, 271 S.E.2d 133. But, the state has no time limit on when it may file. Id. Also, the time for the appellant to file a transcript does not arise until after the filing of the notice of appeal. Code Ann. § 6-806 (now OCGA § 5-6-42). And, the notice of appeal is not required to be filed until after disposition of the motion for new trial. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Johnson
... ... of any attempt to consult any other readily available source of physician addresses such as local or national medical associations or the state medical licensing agency. Nor was there any attempt to contact the health center which had employed the two physicians or to hire an investigator ... ...
-
Whitton v. State, 72033
...September 28, 1984, and following a hearing, the motion for new trial was dismissed. Appeal followed to this court. In Whitton v. State, 174 Ga.App. 634, 331 S.E.2d 10, we held that where the time of a hearing is left blank, as in this case, the time is "indefinite." The defendant had no du......
-
Jones v. Brown, 69818
... ... On December 21, 1983, appellant, acting pro se, filed an action for personal injuries against appellee in the State Court of DeKalb County. On December 22, 1983, the Marshal of DeKalb County returned the summons and complaint non est, having been unable to perfect ... ...
-
Moore v. Sinclair
...265. Our law requires only that appellants file the transcript within 30 days after the notice of appeal is filed. Whitton v. State, 174 Ga.App. 634, 635, 331 S.E.2d 10. Although OCGA § 5-5-40(c) gives trial courts discretion to delay consideration of such motions when the transcript is nec......