Simmons motion in Georgia

2026See Jones v. State, 290 Ga. 490, 493 (1) ( 659 SE2d 875 ) (2008) (holding that the defendant’s argument that his indictment was defective was not a challenge to the validity of his sentence).

2026See Jones v. State, 290 Ga. 490, 493 (1) ( 659 SE2d 875 ) (2008) (holding that the defendant’s argument that his indictment was defective was not a challenge to the validity of his sentence).

2023See Burney v. State, 309 Ga. 273, 293-294 (5) ( 845 SE2d 625 ) (2020) (new trial was not warranted when juror obtained extra-judicial information when she researched the definitions of “malice” and “malice murder” online because the trial court recharged the jury as to the meaning of “malice murder” upon their request and the trial court found no evidence that any of the jurors relied upon the information obtained in the juror’s online search); Royal v. State, 217 Ga. App. 459, 460 (3) ( 458 SE2d 366 ) (1995) (affirming denial of motion for mistrial when a juror showed other jurors her own per

2023See Burney v. State, 309 Ga. 273, 293-294 (5) ( 845 SE2d 625 ) (2020) (new trial was not warranted when juror obtained extra-judicial information when she researched the definitions of “malice” and “malice murder” online because the trial court recharged the jury as to the meaning of “malice murder” upon their request and the trial court found no evidence that any of the jurors relied upon the information obtained in the juror’s online search); Royal v. State, 217 Ga. App. 459, 460 (3) ( 458 SE2d 366 ) (1995) (affirming denial of motion for mistrial when a juror showed other jurors her own per

2023See Burney v. State, 309 Ga. 273, 293-294 (5) ( 845 SE2d 625 ) (2020) (new trial was not warranted when juror obtained extra-judicial information when she researched the definitions of “malice” and “malice murder” online because the trial court recharged the jury as to the meaning of “malice murder” upon their request and the trial court found no evidence that any of the jurors relied upon the information obtained in the juror’s online search); Royal v. State, 217 Ga. App. 459, 460 (3) ( 458 SE2d 366 ) (1995) (affirming denial of motion for mistrial when a juror showed other jurors her own per

2023See Burney v. State, 309 Ga. 273, 293-294 (5) ( 845 SE2d 625 ) (2020) (new trial was not warranted when juror obtained extra-judicial information when she researched the definitions of “malice” and “malice murder” online because the trial court recharged the jury as to the meaning of “malice murder” upon their request and the trial court found no evidence that any of the jurors relied upon the information obtained in the juror’s online search); Royal v. State, 217 Ga. App. 459, 460 (3) ( 458 SE2d 366 ) (1995) (affirming denial of motion for mistrial when a juror showed other jurors her own per

2023When a juror is exposed to information from outside the trial which is brought into the jury room, such information is “extra- judicial information” that can “violate a defendant’s [Constitutional] right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ballinger v. Watkins, 315 Ga. 369, 376 (2) (a) ( 882 SE2d 312 ) (2022).

2023When a juror is exposed to information from outside the trial which is brought into the jury room, such information is “extra- judicial information” that can “violate a defendant’s [Constitutional] right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ballinger v. Watkins, 315 Ga. 369, 376 (2) (a) ( 882 SE2d 312 ) (2022).

2022See Henderson v. State, 303 Ga. 241, 244 (2) ( 811 SE2d 388 ) (2018).

2022See Henderson v. State, 303 Ga. 241, 244 (2) ( 811 SE2d 388 ) (2018).

2017See id. (b) Furthermore, even if the gaps between the railing balusters in this case violated specific building or safety codes and such violations constituted negligence per se, Prince's negligence per se claim would not automatically survive Simmons' motion for summary judgment.

2017"Negligence per se does not equal liability per se, and [Prince's] equal knowledge of the hazard would still entitle *630 [Simmons] to summary judgment." (Citations omitted.) Norman , supra at 629 (2) (c), 627 S.E.2d 382 . 3.

2013Indeed, the records constitute a higher grade of evidence that corroborates that testimony and 14 Brown v. State, 264 Ga. 803, 806 (3) ( 450 SE2d 821 ) (1994) (punctuation omitted). 15 Id. (emphasis supplied) (punctuation omitted); see Bell, 227 Ga. at 806-07 (3); Humphrey, 207 Ga. App. at 475 (1). 13 provides independent and objective support for Simmons’s claim that he was at the nightclub in East Point at the time the robbery was committed in another part of town.16 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Simmons’s mobile-phone records were not cumulative o

2013Indeed, the records constitute a higher grade of evidence that corroborates that testimony and 14 Brown v. State, 264 Ga. 803, 806 (3) ( 450 SE2d 821 ) (1994) (punctuation omitted). 15 Id. (emphasis supplied) (punctuation omitted); see Bell, 227 Ga. at 806-07 (3); Humphrey, 207 Ga. App. at 475 (1). 13 provides independent and objective support for Simmons’s claim that he was at the nightclub in East Point at the time the robbery was committed in another part of town.16 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Simmons’s mobile-phone records were not cumulative o

2013Indeed, the records constitute a higher grade of evidence that corroborates that testimony and 14 Brown v. State, 264 Ga. 803, 806 (3) ( 450 SE2d 821 ) (1994) (punctuation omitted). 15 Id. (emphasis supplied) (punctuation omitted); see Bell, 227 Ga. at 806-07 (3); Humphrey, 207 Ga. App. at 475 (1). 13 provides independent and objective support for Simmons’s claim that he was at the nightclub in East Point at the time the robbery was committed in another part of town.16 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Simmons’s mobile-phone records were not cumulative o

2013Indeed, the records constitute a higher grade of evidence that corroborates that testimony and 14 Brown v. State, 264 Ga. 803, 806 (3) ( 450 SE2d 821 ) (1994) (punctuation omitted). 15 Id. (emphasis supplied) (punctuation omitted); see Bell, 227 Ga. at 806-07 (3); Humphrey, 207 Ga. App. at 475 (1). 13 provides independent and objective support for Simmons’s claim that he was at the nightclub in East Point at the time the robbery was committed in another part of town.16 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Simmons’s mobile-phone records were not cumulative o

2012See Zackery v. State, 286 Ga. 399 (2) ( 688 SE2d 354 ) (2010). 7.

2012See Zackery v. State, 286 Ga. 399 (2) ( 688 SE2d 354 ) (2010). 7.

2012Nevertheless, in this case, even assuming that trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient, [Simmons] has failed to show that his appeal has been prejudiced by the delay. “[A]ppellate delay is prejudicial when there is a reasonable probability that, but for the delay, the result of the appeal would have been different.” Chatman v. Mancill, 280 Ga. 253, 260-261 ( 626 SE2d 102 ) (2006) (citations and punctuation omitted). [Simmons] points to no change in the law or facts or loss of material evidence ... that would raise a reasonable probability that the outcome of his appeal would

2012Nevertheless, in this case, even assuming that trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient, [Simmons] has failed to show that his appeal has been prejudiced by the delay. “[A]ppellate delay is prejudicial when there is a reasonable probability that, but for the delay, the result of the appeal would have been different.” Chatman v. Mancill, 280 Ga. 253, 260-261 ( 626 SE2d 102 ) (2006) (citations and punctuation omitted). [Simmons] points to no change in the law or facts or loss of material evidence ... that would raise a reasonable probability that the outcome of his appeal would

2010Andrews, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). 3 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 4 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). 5 Simmons filed another pro se speedy trial motion in March 2009, after current counsel made an appearance. 6 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 7 505 U. S. 647 (112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520) (1992). 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). 9 Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338, 339 (1) ( 680 SE2d 182 ) (2009). 10 See Boseman v. State, 263 Ga. 730, 732 (1) (a) ( 438 SE2d 626 ) (1994) (as th

2010Andrews, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). 3 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 4 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). 5 Simmons filed another pro se speedy trial motion in March 2009, after current counsel made an appearance. 6 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 7 505 U. S. 647 (112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520) (1992). 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). 9 Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338, 339 (1) ( 680 SE2d 182 ) (2009). 10 See Boseman v. State, 263 Ga. 730, 732 (1) (a) ( 438 SE2d 626 ) (1994) (as th

2010Andrews, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). 3 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 4 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). 5 Simmons filed another pro se speedy trial motion in March 2009, after current counsel made an appearance. 6 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 7 505 U. S. 647 (112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520) (1992). 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). 9 Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338, 339 (1) ( 680 SE2d 182 ) (2009). 10 See Boseman v. State, 263 Ga. 730, 732 (1) (a) ( 438 SE2d 626 ) (1994) (as th

2010Andrews, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). 3 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 4 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). 5 Simmons filed another pro se speedy trial motion in March 2009, after current counsel made an appearance. 6 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 7 505 U. S. 647 (112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520) (1992). 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). 9 Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338, 339 (1) ( 680 SE2d 182 ) (2009). 10 See Boseman v. State, 263 Ga. 730, 732 (1) (a) ( 438 SE2d 626 ) (1994) (as th

2010Andrews, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). 3 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 4 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). 5 Simmons filed another pro se speedy trial motion in March 2009, after current counsel made an appearance. 6 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 7 505 U. S. 647 (112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520) (1992). 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). 9 Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338, 339 (1) ( 680 SE2d 182 ) (2009). 10 See Boseman v. State, 263 Ga. 730, 732 (1) (a) ( 438 SE2d 626 ) (1994) (as th

2010Andrews, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). 3 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 4 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). 5 Simmons filed another pro se speedy trial motion in March 2009, after current counsel made an appearance. 6 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 7 505 U. S. 647 (112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520) (1992). 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). 9 Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338, 339 (1) ( 680 SE2d 182 ) (2009). 10 See Boseman v. State, 263 Ga. 730, 732 (1) (a) ( 438 SE2d 626 ) (1994) (as th

2010Andrews, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). 3 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 4 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). 5 Simmons filed another pro se speedy trial motion in March 2009, after current counsel made an appearance. 6 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 7 505 U. S. 647 (112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520) (1992). 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). 9 Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338, 339 (1) ( 680 SE2d 182 ) (2009). 10 See Boseman v. State, 263 Ga. 730, 732 (1) (a) ( 438 SE2d 626 ) (1994) (as th

2010Andrews, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). 3 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 4 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). 5 Simmons filed another pro se speedy trial motion in March 2009, after current counsel made an appearance. 6 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 7 505 U. S. 647 (112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520) (1992). 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). 9 Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338, 339 (1) ( 680 SE2d 182 ) (2009). 10 See Boseman v. State, 263 Ga. 730, 732 (1) (a) ( 438 SE2d 626 ) (1994) (as th

2010Andrews, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). 3 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 4 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). 5 Simmons filed another pro se speedy trial motion in March 2009, after current counsel made an appearance. 6 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 7 505 U. S. 647 (112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520) (1992). 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). 9 Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338, 339 (1) ( 680 SE2d 182 ) (2009). 10 See Boseman v. State, 263 Ga. 730, 732 (1) (a) ( 438 SE2d 626 ) (1994) (as th

2010Andrews, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). 3 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 4 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). 5 Simmons filed another pro se speedy trial motion in March 2009, after current counsel made an appearance. 6 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 7 505 U. S. 647 (112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520) (1992). 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). 9 Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338, 339 (1) ( 680 SE2d 182 ) (2009). 10 See Boseman v. State, 263 Ga. 730, 732 (1) (a) ( 438 SE2d 626 ) (1994) (as th

2010Andrews, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). 3 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 4 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). 5 Simmons filed another pro se speedy trial motion in March 2009, after current counsel made an appearance. 6 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 7 505 U. S. 647 (112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520) (1992). 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). 9 Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338, 339 (1) ( 680 SE2d 182 ) (2009). 10 See Boseman v. State, 263 Ga. 730, 732 (1) (a) ( 438 SE2d 626 ) (1994) (as th

2010Andrews, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). 3 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 4 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). 5 Simmons filed another pro se speedy trial motion in March 2009, after current counsel made an appearance. 6 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 7 505 U. S. 647 (112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520) (1992). 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). 9 Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338, 339 (1) ( 680 SE2d 182 ) (2009). 10 See Boseman v. State, 263 Ga. 730, 732 (1) (a) ( 438 SE2d 626 ) (1994) (as th

2010Andrews, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1). 3 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 4 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). 5 Simmons filed another pro se speedy trial motion in March 2009, after current counsel made an appearance. 6 407 U. S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 7 505 U. S. 647 (112 SC 2686, 120 LE2d 520) (1992). 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). 9 Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338, 339 (1) ( 680 SE2d 182 ) (2009). 10 See Boseman v. State, 263 Ga. 730, 732 (1) (a) ( 438 SE2d 626 ) (1994) (as th

2004Compare Walker v. Hill, 253 Ga. 126 (3) ( 317 SE2d 825 ) (1984) (where no express findings are entered on an issue raised in a quia timet proceeding, the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for findings and conclusions). 2.

2004Compare Walker v. Hill, 253 Ga. 126 (3) ( 317 SE2d 825 ) (1984) (where no express findings are entered on an issue raised in a quia timet proceeding, the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for findings and conclusions). 2.

1997That issue need not be and is not resolved here, for it is an issue which more aptly relates to the proper breadth of the Simmons privilege, and not to the need for retaining automatic standing.” Id. at 93-94.

1997That issue need not be and is not resolved here, for it is an issue which more aptly relates to the proper breadth of the Simmons privilege, and not to the need for retaining automatic standing.” Id. at 93-94.

1996Bohannon v. State, 208 Ga.App. 576, 580 , 431 S.E.2d 149 (1993).

1996Bohannon v. State, 208 Ga.App. 576, 580 , 431 S.E.2d 149 (1993).

1996Multivision Northwest, 356 FSupp. at 215; Precise v. City of Rossville, 261 Ga. 210, 211 (3) ( 403 SE2d 47 ) (1991) (a judgment right for any reason must be affirmed).

1996Multivision Northwest, 356 FSupp. at 215; Precise v. City of Rossville, 261 Ga. 210, 211 (3) ( 403 SE2d 47 ) (1991) (a judgment right for any reason must be affirmed).