lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
BALLEW v. THE STATE.
25342.
GRICE, Justice.
Robbery by force. Habersham Superior Court. Before Judge Smith.
Appellant was found guilty of robbery by force and was sentenced to a term of five years in the penitentiary.
A different result is not required because of the 1968 amendment to the Appellate Practice Act (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1072, 1074-1075; Code Ann. 6-809 (d)), which provides in material part that "Where it is apparent from the notice of appeal, the record, the enumeration of errors, or any combination of the foregoing, what judgment or judgments were appealed from or what errors are sought to be asserted upon appeal, the appeal shall be considered in accordance therewith notwithstanding that the notice of appeal fails to specify definitely the judgment appealed from . . ."
The situation here is not one provided for in the foregoing amendatory provision, where the notice of appeal fails "to specify definitely the judgment." (Emphasis supplied.) Rather, it is a situation where the notice of appeal fails to specify any judgment whatever. See Head v. Gulf Oil Corp., 225 Ga. 21 (165 SE2d 658).
FELTON, Justice, dissenting. Subsection (d) of Code Ann. 6-809, added by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1072, provides in part as follows: "Where it is apparent from the notice of appeal, the record, the enumeration of errors, or any combination of the foregoing, what judgment or judgments were appealed from or what errors are sought to be asserted upon appeal, the appeal shall be considered in accordance therewith notwithstanding that the notice of appeal fails to specify definitely the judgment appealed from or that the enumeration of errors fails to enumerate clearly the errors sought to be reviewed." (Emphasis supplied.) Since there is but one final judgment in this record, i.e., the judgment on the verdict, and since the enumeration of errors specifies the overruling of the amended motion for new trial, it is apparent that the appeal is from the judgment on the verdict and that the grounds of the appeal are those contained in the amended motion for new trial, the order overruling which being reviewable under the provisions of Code Ann. 6-701 (b) (Ga. L. 1965, p. 18, as amended).
Instead of dismissing, I would decide the case on the merits in accordance with the clear legislative intent of the Appellate Practice Act, as expressed in Code Ann. 6-905 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 40) and 6-809. See also Brackett v. Allison, 119 Ga. App. 632 (1) (168 SE2d 611).
Herbert B. Kimzey, District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Assistant Attorney General, Marion O. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General, Larry H. Evans, for appellee.
Irwin R. Kimzey, for appellant.
SUBMITTED JULY 15, 1969 -- DECIDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1969 -- REHEARING DENIED SEPTEMBER 29, 1969.
Friday May 22 17:24 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com