Ealey v. State, 221 S.E.2d 50 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Ealey v. State, 221 S.E.2d 50 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Edward Coleman v. State, No. A12A1087 (Ga. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2012)
How cited ↗
Cited for
136 Ga. App. at 292 Analyzing indictment defect regarding burglary charge1 citing caseBell, Chief Judge. Defendant was convicted of simple assault and burglary. The appeal is limited to the contention that the burglary count of the indictment is…opening of page *292 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Edward Coleman v. State, No. A12A1087 (Ga. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2012).published
    Consequently, the 18 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Smith, supra at 56 (3). 19 See Polk v. State, 275 Ga. App. 467, 468-469 (1) ( 620 SE2d 857 ) (2005); Ealey v. State, 136 Ga. App. 292, 292-293 ( 221 SE2d 50 ) (1975). 20 A person com…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ealey
v.
the State
51031.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Sep 30, 1975.
Published opinion
221 S.E.2d 50
Harrison, Jolles & Miller, Charles F. Miller, Jr., for appellant., Richard Allen, District Attorney, for appellee.
Bell, Webb, Marshall.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
Bell, Chief Judge.

Defendant was convicted of simple assault and burglary. The appeal is limited to the contention that the burglary count of the indictment is fatally defective. This count in pertinent part alleged that defendant "did without authority and with intent to commit a felony, did enter the dwelling house of. . .” State v. Lockhart, 24 Ga. 420 held that if a burglary indictment fails to specify the[*293] felony which the defendant intended to commit, the defect is fatal. This case controls.

Submitted September 16,1975 Decided September 22, 1975 Rehearing denied October 23, 1975. Harrison, Jolles & Miller, Charles F. Miller, Jr., for appellant. Richard Allen, District Attorney, for appellee.

As no question is raised as to the conviction and sentence for simple assault we affirm that part of the judgment but reverse as to the conviction and sentence for burglary.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.