Cluster 1243476

See also Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 53 (4) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002) (“The trial court . . . engaged in appropriate attempts to require [Taylor] to comply with rules of evidence and procedure, which task [Taylor] willingly undertook when he decided to represent himself.”) (punctuation omitted).

See also Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 52 (4) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002) (“The trial court . . . engaged in appropriate attempts to require [Taylor] to comply with rules of evidence and procedure, which task [Taylor] willingly undertook when he decided to represent himself.”) (punctuation omitted). 37 Taylor also alleges that the trial court and the prosecutor testified falsely under oath and lied.

Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 50 ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002).

Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 50 ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002).

We take this opportunity to remind counsel that the Court’s briefing requirements “are not merely an inconvenience or grounds for refusing to consider a party’s contentions,” Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 50 ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002).

While Stoica enumerates five errors, he does not address them individually, but instead argues that the errors “are not necessarily fully distinct, as they all end up calling into question the sufficiency of the evidence,” because the three counts “are too intertwined not to be retried together.” See Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (“The sequence of arguments in the briefs shall follow the order of the enumeration of errors, and shall be numbered accordingly.”); Salazar v. Stat…

One who knowingly elects to represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with the substantive and procedural requirements of the law.” Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 53 (4) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002) (citation and punctuation omitted).

Leone filed yet another lawsuit in the Northern District Court, Atlanta Division, styled Kyunna Sierra Leone v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Dynex Financial and Origen Financial, LLC, Civil Action File Number 1:10-CV-3402-CAE This complaint was dismissed upon Green Tree’s motion to dismiss. 5 See Hallisy v. Snyder, 219 Ga. App. 128, 129 (2) ( 464 SE2d 219 ) (1995). 6 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Sharp v. Greer, Klosik & Daugherty, 256 Ga. App. 370, 372 (2) ( 568 SE2d 50…

E.g., Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 52 (3) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002).

See Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 51 (2) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002). 4 Salazar, supra at 50 . 5 Court of Appeals Rule 25 (a) (1) (“The brief of appellant shall... contain ... the citation of such parts of the record or transcript essential to a consideration of the errors complained of’); Court of Appeals Rule 25 (a) (3) (“The brief of appellant shall. . . contain the argument and citation of authorities”). 6 Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2) (“Any enumeration of error whic…

Andrews, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur. 1 (Citation omitted.) Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 51 (1) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002). 2 (Footnote omitted.) Tenorio v. State, 261 Ga. App. 609 (1) ( 583 SE2d 269 ) (2003). 3 OCGA § 40-6-40 (a) (2) states: Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except... [w]hen an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway, provided that any pe…

One who knowingly elects to represent Pier] self assumes full responsibility for complying with the substantive and procedural requirements of the law.” (Punctuation omitted.) Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 53 (4) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002).

We note, however, that “the best way to ensure that a defendant fully appreciates the right [she] has chosen to relinquish, and that trial judges fully understand their duty in this process, is for the trial court to address each factor, individually, and on the record.” Banks v. State, 260 Ga. App. 515, 520 (2) ( 580 SE2d 308 ) (2003). 11 McCants v. State, 255 Ga. App. 133, 134 (1) ( 564 SE2d 532 ) (2002). 12 195 Ga. App. 605 ( 394 SE2d 401 ) (1990). 13 (Citation omitted.) …

The statute provides that “[e]vidence obtained by county or municipal law enforcement officers in using speed detection devices... within 600 feet of a reduction of a speed limit outside an incorporated municipality ... shall be inadmissible in the prosecution of a violation of any municipal ordinance, county ordinance, or state law regulating speed.” Ferguson v. State, 263 Ga. App. 40, 41 (1) ( 587 SE2d 195 ) (2003), citing Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 51-52 ( 567 SE2…

Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 51-52 ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002).

Abramson, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee. 1 See Deal v. State, 241 Ga. App. 879 (1) ( 528 SE2d 289 ) (2000). 2 See id. at 879-880 . 3 The trial court merged the two counts for sentencing purposes and also dead-docketed a count of child molestation.. 4 Roberts v. State, 258 Ga. App. 107 -108 (1) ( 572 SE2d 744 ) (2002). 5 See OCGA § 16-6-4 (c); Gearin v. State, 255 Ga. App. 329, 333 (1) ( 565 SE2d 540 ) (2002). 6 Baker v. State, 228 Ga. App. 32, 33 (2) ( 491 SE2d …

Suffice it to say, any analysis of the necessity for recusal is, by its very nature, “fact-bound, requiring an examination of the nature and extent of any business, personal, social or political associations, and an exercise of judgment concerning just how close and how extensive (and how recent) these associations are or have been to mandate recusal.”35 And when the trial court sits as trier of fact, its findings “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.”36 Furtherm…

See Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 53 (4) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002).

See Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 53 (4) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002).

See Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 53 (4) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002).

See Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 53 (4) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002).

See Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 52 (3) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002).

See Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 51 (2) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002).

See also Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 53 (4) ( 567 SE2d 706 ) (2002) (holding that a pro se defendant is not held to a different or more lenient standard merely because he elected to proceed pro se; one who knowingly elects to represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with the substantive and procedural requirements of the law). 3 As cited above, the appellate record does not contain a copy of the October 13, 2010 Request for Admissions. 4 (Citation a…