State v. Middlebrooks (1976)
green
· 224 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 46 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197620012026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Bright v. State (1995)
State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976) (“in no event will we overturn a conviction on direct appeal or on collateral attack because a commitment hearing was denied appellant”); Cargill v. State, 255 Ga. 616, 621-622 (1) ( 340 SE2d 891 ) (1986); Corn v. State, 142 Ga. App. 798 (2) ( 237 SE2d 203 ) (1977). 5.
“in no event will we overturn a conviction on direct appeal or on collateral attack because a commitment hearing was denied appellant”
green
State v. Ruff (1985)
“The ‘. . . purpose of a commitment hearing is simply to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty of the crime charged, and if so, to bind him over for indictment by the grand jury. [OCGA § 17-7-23].’ Jackson v. State, 225 Ga. 39, 42 ( 165 SE2d 711 ) (1969). ... [a] preliminary hearing is not a required step in a felony prosecution and . . . once an indictment is obtained there is no judicial oversight or review of the decision to prosecute bec…
green
Roberts v. State (2004)
Green, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. 1 See State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976) (“[A] preliminary hearing is not a required step in a felony prosecution and . . . once an indictment is obtained there is no judicial oversight or review of the decision to prosecute because of any failure to hold a commitment hearing.”); McClarity v. State, 234 Ga. App. 348, 351 (3) (a) ( 506 SE2d 392 ) (1998). 2 See Blackwell v. Sutton, 261 Ga. 284 ( 4…
“[A] preliminary hearing is not a required step in a felony prosecution and . . . once an indictment is obtained there is no judicial oversight or review of the decision to prosecute because of any failure to hold a commitment hearing.”
green
Eady v. State (1987)
State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976); First Nat.
green
Parrish v. State (1981)
Finally, in no event will we overturn a conviction on direct appeal . . . because a commitment hearing was denied [defendant].” (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).
green
Day v. State (1976)
A majority of the court in State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976), held that the purpose of a commitment hearing is simply to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty of the crime charged and to bind him over for indictment by a grand jury; and that, once an indictment is obtained, there is no judicial review of the decision to prosecute because of any failure to hold a commitment hearing.
green
First National Bank & Trust Co. v. State (1976)
Code § 27-407.’ ” State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).
green
McClarity v. State (1998)
NOTES [1] (Citations omitted.) Thaxton v. State, 260 Ga. 141, 142 (2), 390 S.E.2d 841 (1990). [2] Hayes v. State, 203 Ga.App. 143, 144 (2), 416 S.E.2d 347 (1992). [3] Mallory v. State, 225 Ga.App. 418, 422 (4), 483 S.E.2d 907 (1997). [4] Thaxton, supra, 260 Ga. at 142 (2), 390 S.E.2d 841 . [5] Davis v. State, 229 Ga.App. 787, 789 (2), 494 S.E.2d 702 (1997); see Smith v. State, 268 Ga. 42, 43 (3), 485 S.E.2d 189 (1997) (similar transaction issue waived if defendant fails to o…
green
McClarity v. State (1998)
State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).
green
Taylor v. Chitwood (1996)
Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).
green
Ross v. Lemacks (1995)
“The ‘purpose of a commitment hearing is simply to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty of the crime charged, and if so, to bind him over for indictment by the grand jury.’ State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).” Spears v. Johnson, 256 Ga. 518 ( 350 SE2d 468 ) (1986).
green
State v. Godfrey (1992)
State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).
green
Spears v. Johnson (1986)
The “purpose of a commitment hearing is simply to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty of the crime charged, and if so, to bind him over for indictment by the grand jury.” State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976); OCGA § 17-7-23.
green
McClendon v. State (1986)
The grand jury indicted McClendon on the day that he filed his motion for a committal hearing. “[0]nce an indictment is obtained there is no judicial oversight or review of the decision to prosecute because of any failure to hold a commitment hearing.” State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).
green
Cargill v. State (1986)
The ‘. . . purpose of a commitment hearing is simply to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty of the crime charged, and if so, to bind him over for indictment by the grand jury. [OCGA § 17-7-23]’ Jackson v. State, 225 Ga. 39, 42 ( 165 SE2d 711 ) (1969).” State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 (2) ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).
green
Mitchell v. State (1985)
While a preliminary hearing is not a required step in a felony prosecution (State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 (222 SE2d *561 343) (1976)), if a hearing is held counsel must be provided.
green
Watts v. Pitts (1984)
As was pointed out in State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 53 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976), commitment hearing issues usually arise in one of two distinct situations: (1) a commitment hearing was held b.ut the accused was not afforded the assistance of counsel at that hearing; 3 or (2) no commitment hearing has been held.
green
Taylor v. State (1984)
Finally, in no event will we overturn a conviction on direct appeal or on collateral attack because a commitment hearing was denied [defendant].” (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 222 SE2d 343 ).
green
Harper v. State (1982)
He now complains that the denial of his request for a preliminary hearing constitutes reversible error. “[A] preliminary hearing is not a required step in a felony prosecution and... once an indictment is obtained there is no judicial oversight or review of the decision to prosecute because of any failure to hold a commitment hearing ... [I] n no event will we overturn a conviction on direct appeal . . . because a commitment hearing was denied appellant.” State v. Middlebroo…
green
Neal v. State (1981)
See Code Ann. § 27-407 (Ga. L. 1980, p. 415); State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 (2) ( 222 SE2d 343 ).
green
Clarke v. State (1981)
Finally, in no event will we overturn a conviction on direct appeal or on collateral attack because a commitment hearing was denied appellant.” State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54-55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ).
green
Williams v. State (1981)
In any event, “a preliminary hearing is not a required step in a felony prosecution and . . . once an indictment is obtained there, is no judicial oversight or review of the decision to prosecute because of any failure to hold a commitment hearing . . . [W]e [will not] overturn a conviction . . . because a commitment hearing was denied appellant.” State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976); Albert v. State, 152 Ga. App. 708, 709 ( 263 SE2d 685 ) (1979). 2.
green
Albert v. State (1979)
"We hold that a preliminary hearing is not a required step in a felony prosecution and that once an indictment is obtained there is no judicial oversight or review of the decision to prosecute because of any failure to hold a commitment hearing.” State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976); Sims v. State, 148 Ga. App. 733 ( 252 SE2d 910 ) (1979). 2.
green
Collins v. State (1979)
Finally, in no event will we overturn a conviction on direct appeal or on collateral attack because a commitment hearing was denied appellant.” State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).
green
Sims v. State (1979)
State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).
green
Natson v. State (1978)
In State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976), this court held, ". . .that a preliminary hearing is not a required step in a felony prosecution and that once an indictment is obtained there is no judicial oversight or review of the decision to prosecute because of any failure to hold a commitment hearing.. .[I]n no event will we overturn a conviction on direct appeal or on collateral attack because a commitment hearing was denied appellant.” Appellant’s th…
green
Webster v. State (1978)
As to the question of a preliminary hearing, we quote from State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ): "[A] preliminary hearing is not a required step in a felony prosecution and... once an indictment is obtained there is no judicial oversight or review of the decision to prosecute because of any failure to hold a commitment hearing.
green
Key v. State (1978)
State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 ( 222 SE 2d 343 ). 2.
green
Stewart v. State (1977)
State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976). 3.
green
Williams v. State (1977)
State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ). 8.
green
Corn v. State (1977)
This enumeration has no merit. "[I]n no event will we overturn a conviction on direct appeal . . . because a commitment hearing was denied appellant.” State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ).
green
Abner v. State (1976)
The case was tried on May 28 and 29 and the conviction resulted. "... a preliminary hearing is not a required step in a felony prosecution and . . . once an indictment is obtained there is no judicial oversight or review of the decision to prosecute because of any failure to hold a commitment hearing.” State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ).
green
Forehand v. State (1976)
Moreover, a reversal of the judgment would not be warranted even if no commitment hearing had ever been held according to the recent decision of State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 SE2d 343 ).
green
Walker v. City of Atlanta (1977)
See also State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52 (2) ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).
green
Baldwin v. Sapp (1977)
See State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).
green
Fore v. State (1976)
See State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976) (Hill, Justice, dissenting).
green
Caldwell v. State (1984)
See State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).
green
Jones v. State (1984)
See State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976).
green
Puckett v. State (1982)
See State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 ( 222 SE2d 343 ); Phillips v. Stynchcombe, 231 Ga. 430 ( 202 SE2d 26 ).
green
Tucker v. State (1982)
See also State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976). 3.
green
Banks v. State (1981)
See in this connection State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 (1) (2) ( 222 SE2d 343 ); Baldwin v. Sapp, 238 Ga. 597 ( 234 SE2d 513 ).
green
Simmons v. State (1980)
See State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 ( 222 SE2d 343 ) (1976); Walker v. City of Atlanta, 238 Ga. 723, 724 ( 235 SE2d 28 ) (1977). 4.
green
McAuliffe v. Outz (1976)
Boatright v. State, 10 Ga. App. 29 ( 72 SE 599 ); compare, Rogers v. State, 133 Ga. App. 513 ( 211 SE2d 373 ); see also State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52 ( 222 SE2d 343 ); Forehand v. State, 138 Ga. App. 468 .
green
State v. Hightower (1976)
See State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52 .
green
Fleming v. State (1976)
See State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52 (1976).
green
Mitchell v. State (1976)
See State v. Middlebrooks, supra.