record shows error in Georgia

2000Foskey v. Foskey, 257 Ga. 736, 737 (2), 363 S.E.2d 547 (1988); Barton v. State, 79 Ga.App. 380, 387-388 (2), 53 S.E.2d 707 (1949).

2000Foskey v. Foskey, 257 Ga. 736, 737 (2), 363 S.E.2d 547 (1988); Barton v. State, 79 Ga.App. 380, 387-388 (2), 53 S.E.2d 707 (1949).

2000Foskey v. Foskey, 257 Ga. 736, 737 (2), 363 S.E.2d 547 (1988); Barton v. State, 79 Ga.App. 380, 387-388 (2), 53 S.E.2d 707 (1949).

2000Foskey v. Foskey, 257 Ga. 736, 737 (2), 363 S.E.2d 547 (1988); Barton v. State, 79 Ga.App. 380, 387-388 (2), 53 S.E.2d 707 (1949).

2013We conclude that Jones is entitled to summary judgment for the reasons explained in Division 1, supra. Oehlerich v. Llewellyn, 285 Ga. App. 738, 740-741 (2) ( 647 SE2d 399 ) (2007) (affirming summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty, which called into question the degree of professional skill exercised by the defendant attorney and therefore merely duplicated the plaintiff’s unsupported claim for legal malpractice). 3.

2013We conclude that Jones is entitled to summary judgment for the reasons explained in Division 1, supra. Oehlerich v. Llewellyn, 285 Ga. App. 738, 740-741 (2) ( 647 SE2d 399 ) (2007) (affirming summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty, which called into question the degree of professional skill exercised by the defendant attorney and therefore merely duplicated the plaintiff’s unsupported claim for legal malpractice). 3.

2025“For purposes of plain error review, an affirmative waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right[.]” Griffin, 309 Ga. at 865 (2) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2025See also Grullon v. State, 313 Ga. 40, 46-47 (2) (867 SE2d 95) (2021) (in connection with plain error standard, discussing distinction between mere failure to object and affirmative waiver of the error on appeal).

2025See also Grullon v. State, 313 Ga. 40, 46-47 (2) (867 SE2d 95) (2021) (in connection with plain error standard, discussing distinction between mere failure to object and affirmative waiver of the error on appeal).

2023Rickman and Gobeil, JJ. concur. 34 See, e.g., United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219, 236 (III) (A) (3) (3d Cir. 2011) (applying “‘a rule of reasonableness’” and holding that a three-month delay was not unreasonable under the circumstances).

2022See Henderson, 310 Ga. at 236 (2) (b) (“Whether the defendant or the State bears the primary responsibility for delay in reaching trial is pivotal in evaluating the strength of a constitutional speedy[-]trial claim, as it can color the consideration of all other factors.” (citation and punctuation omitted)).

2022This is likely a typographical error as Appellant filed his speedy-trial motion in September 2017, and in Redding I, we acknowledged that “[t]he trial court held a hearing — apparently on May 9, 2018 — but did not make any ruling at the time of the hearing.” 309 Ga. at 128 (3). 5 In Redding I, we noted that “[t]he trial court scheduled a hearing on the motion for November 30, 2017, but, as the State concedes, there is no record that a hearing was held that day.” 309 Ga. at 128 (3). 6 Although the trial court said only that a hearing took place in October 2018, the record shows that the hearing

2022Additionally, the trial court failed to address the amount of time involved in each delay, i.e., whether Appellant or the State or both requested a one- day delay or a two-month delay to “research issues.” Similarly, in the portion of the order addressing the length-of- 5 In Redding I, we noted that “[t]he trial court scheduled a hearing on the motion for November 30, 2017, but, as the State concedes, there is no record that a hearing was held that day.” 309 Ga. at 128 (2). 6 Although the trial court said only that a hearing took place in October 2018, the record shows that the hearing occurre

2022Abba Gana, 251 Ga. at 343 (1).

2021The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution “guarantees to the defendant the right to inquire about a witness’s . . . pending criminal charges in an effort to show that the witness has ‘possible biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives’ that may influence his testimony.” Wright v. State, 279 Ga. 498, 499 (614 SE2d 56) (2005) (citation omitted).

2021The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution “guarantees to the defendant the right to inquire about a witness’s . . . pending criminal charges in an effort to show that the witness has ‘possible biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives’ that may influence his testimony.” Wright v. State, 279 Ga. 498, 499 (614 SE2d 56) (2005) (citation omitted).

2016Accordingly, this issue has not been preserved for our review.” Smith v. Stacey, 281 Ga. 601, 602-603 (2) ( 642 SE2d 28 ) (2007) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2016Accordingly, this issue has not been preserved for our review.” Smith v. Stacey, 281 Ga. 601, 602-603 (2) ( 642 SE2d 28 ) (2007) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2010See Thompson v. State, 286 Ga. 891 , 692 S.E.2d 384 (2010).

2010See Thompson v. State, 286 Ga. 891 , 692 S.E.2d 384 (2010).

2010“Where[, as here,] the transcript is necessary for review and [Hunt] omits it from the record on appeal, the appellate court must presume the judgment below was correct and affirm.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Baker v. Brannen/Goddard Co., 274 Ga. 745, 747 (1) ( 559 SE2d 450 ) (2002); Bynum v. Horizon Staffing, 266 Ga. App. 337, 339 ( 596 SE2d 648 ) (2004) (burden is on appellant to show error from the record, not from assertions in his appellate brief).

2010“Where[, as here,] the transcript is necessary for review and [Hunt] omits it from the record on appeal, the appellate court must presume the judgment below was correct and affirm.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Baker v. Brannen/Goddard Co., 274 Ga. 745, 747 (1) ( 559 SE2d 450 ) (2002); Bynum v. Horizon Staffing, 266 Ga. App. 337, 339 ( 596 SE2d 648 ) (2004) (burden is on appellant to show error from the record, not from assertions in his appellate brief).

2010“Where[, as here,] the transcript is necessary for review and [Hunt] omits it from the record on appeal, the appellate court must presume the judgment below was correct and affirm.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Baker v. Brannen/Goddard Co., 274 Ga. 745, 747 (1) ( 559 SE2d 450 ) (2002); Bynum v. Horizon Staffing, 266 Ga. App. 337, 339 ( 596 SE2d 648 ) (2004) (burden is on appellant to show error from the record, not from assertions in his appellate brief).

2010“Where[, as here,] the transcript is necessary for review and [Hunt] omits it from the record on appeal, the appellate court must presume the judgment below was correct and affirm.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Baker v. Brannen/Goddard Co., 274 Ga. 745, 747 (1) ( 559 SE2d 450 ) (2002); Bynum v. Horizon Staffing, 266 Ga. App. 337, 339 ( 596 SE2d 648 ) (2004) (burden is on appellant to show error from the record, not from assertions in his appellate brief).

2002“One cannot complain of a judgment, order, or ruling that his own procedure or conduct procured or aided in causing.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 199 Ga. App. 122, 124 (3) ( 404 SE2d 296 ) (1991).

2002“One cannot complain of a judgment, order, or ruling that his own procedure or conduct procured or aided in causing.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 199 Ga. App. 122, 124 (3) ( 404 SE2d 296 ) (1991).

1998The rule is that the scope of review is limited to the scope of the ruling in the trial court as shown by the trial record and cannot be enlarged or transformed through a process of switching, shifting.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Robin *868 son v. State, 208 Ga. App. 528, 530-531 ( 430 SE2d 830 ) (1993). 3 (b) Appellant did not register an objection that “there is no way to determine which of the reports concerns the alleged illegal substance seized in the case on trial.” In fact, the record shows that defense counsel had no difficulty in recognizing the crime lab report on the inst

1998The rule is that the scope of review is limited to the scope of the ruling in the trial court as shown by the trial record and cannot be enlarged or transformed through a process of switching, shifting.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Robin *868 son v. State, 208 Ga. App. 528, 530-531 ( 430 SE2d 830 ) (1993). 3 (b) Appellant did not register an objection that “there is no way to determine which of the reports concerns the alleged illegal substance seized in the case on trial.” In fact, the record shows that defense counsel had no difficulty in recognizing the crime lab report on the inst

1995Although we are satisfied that the error appears to be the result of a slip of the tongue (see Rodriguez v. State, 211 Ga. App. 256, 258 ( 439 SE2d 510 )), we must address whether a fair risk exists that the mistake misled or confused the jury (see Gober v. State, 247 Ga. 652, 655 ( 278 SE2d 386 ); Siegel v. State, 206 Ga. 252, 253-254 ( 56 SE2d 512 )), particularly as all charging errors are presumed to be harmful and prejudicial unless the record shows the error to be harmless.

1995Although we are satisfied that the error appears to be the result of a slip of the tongue (see Rodriguez v. State, 211 Ga. App. 256, 258 ( 439 SE2d 510 )), we must address whether a fair risk exists that the mistake misled or confused the jury (see Gober v. State, 247 Ga. 652, 655 ( 278 SE2d 386 ); Siegel v. State, 206 Ga. 252, 253-254 ( 56 SE2d 512 )), particularly as all charging errors are presumed to be harmful and prejudicial unless the record shows the error to be harmless.

1995Although we are satisfied that the error appears to be the result of a slip of the tongue (see Rodriguez v. State, 211 Ga. App. 256, 258 ( 439 SE2d 510 )), we must address whether a fair risk exists that the mistake misled or confused the jury (see Gober v. State, 247 Ga. 652, 655 ( 278 SE2d 386 ); Siegel v. State, 206 Ga. 252, 253-254 ( 56 SE2d 512 )), particularly as all charging errors are presumed to be harmful and prejudicial unless the record shows the error to be harmless.

1995Although we are satisfied that the error appears to be the result of a slip of the tongue (see Rodriguez v. State, 211 Ga. App. 256, 258 ( 439 SE2d 510 )), we must address whether a fair risk exists that the mistake misled or confused the jury (see Gober v. State, 247 Ga. 652, 655 ( 278 SE2d 386 ); Siegel v. State, 206 Ga. 252, 253-254 ( 56 SE2d 512 )), particularly as all charging errors are presumed to be harmful and prejudicial unless the record shows the error to be harmless.

1995Although we are satisfied that the error appears to be the result of a slip of the tongue (see Rodriguez v. State, 211 Ga. App. 256, 258 ( 439 SE2d 510 )), we must address whether a fair risk exists that the mistake misled or confused the jury (see Gober v. State, 247 Ga. 652, 655 ( 278 SE2d 386 ); Siegel v. State, 206 Ga. 252, 253-254 ( 56 SE2d 512 )), particularly as all charging errors are presumed to be harmful and prejudicial unless the record shows the error to be harmless.

1995Although we are satisfied that the error appears to be the result of a slip of the tongue (see Rodriguez v. State, 211 Ga. App. 256, 258 ( 439 SE2d 510 )), we must address whether a fair risk exists that the mistake misled or confused the jury (see Gober v. State, 247 Ga. 652, 655 ( 278 SE2d 386 ); Siegel v. State, 206 Ga. 252, 253-254 ( 56 SE2d 512 )), particularly as all charging errors are presumed to be harmful and prejudicial unless the record shows the error to be harmless.

1993While ordinarily under this posture of the case we would remand for an evidentiary hearing and ruling by the trial court (see Johnson v. State, 259 Ga. 428, 430 ( 383 SE2d 115 )), under the facts of this appeal it would serve no useful purpose.

1993While ordinarily under this posture of the case we would remand for an evidentiary hearing and ruling by the trial court (see Johnson v. State, 259 Ga. 428, 430 ( 383 SE2d 115 )), under the facts of this appeal it would serve no useful purpose.

1989Dye v. State, 177 Ga. App. 824, 825 ( 341 SE2d 314 ). 5.

1989Dye v. State, 177 Ga. App. 824, 825 ( 341 SE2d 314 ). 5.