Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2019"But the test for harm under plain error review is equivalent to the test in ineffective assistance of counsel cases for whether an attorney's deficient performance has resulted in prejudice of constitutional proportions." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Williams , 304 Ga. at 460 (3), n. 4, 818 S.E.2d 653 . 2019"But the test for harm under plain error review is equivalent to the test in ineffective assistance of counsel cases for whether an attorney's deficient performance has resulted in prejudice of constitutional proportions." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Williams , 304 Ga. at 460 (3), n. 4, 818 S.E.2d 653 . | 2 | 2 |
Pritchett v. Stategreen2 sentences2024We review the trial court’s ruling admitting such evidence under Rule 404 (b) for abuse of discretion, see Pritchett v. State, 314 Ga. 767, 774 (2) (a) (879 SE2d 436) (2022), and conclude that any abuse of discretion was harmless. (a) The Evidence Admitted Under Rule 404 (b) Rule 404 (b) concerns the admissibility of a defendant’s “crimes, wrongs, or acts” other than the crime charged. 2024We review the trial court’s ruling admitting such evidence under Rule 404 (b) for abuse of discretion, see Pritchett v. State, 314 Ga. 767, 774 (2) (a) (879 SE2d 436) (2022), and conclude that any abuse of discretion was harmless. (a) The Evidence Admitted Under Rule 404 (b) Rule 404 (b) concerns the admissibility of a defendant’s “crimes, wrongs, or acts” other than the crime charged. | 1 | 1 |
Baldwin v. Baldwingreen2 sentences2022In Baldwin v. Baldwin, 265 Ga. 465, 465 ( 458 SE2d 126 ) (1995), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that “where . . . the trial court determines that both parents are fit and equally capable of caring for the child, the court must consider joint custody but is not required to enter such an order unless it specifically finds that to do so would be in the best interest of the child.” 265 Ga. at 465 (emphasis in original). 2022In Baldwin v. Baldwin, 265 Ga. 465, 465 ( 458 SE2d 126 ) (1995), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that “where . . . the trial court determines that both parents are fit and equally capable of caring for the child, the court must consider joint custody but is not required to enter such an order unless it specifically finds that to do so would be in the best interest of the child.” 265 Ga. at 465 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Alvelo v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Miller relies on Alvelo v. State, 288 Ga. 437, 438-39 (1) (704 SE2d 787) (2011), for the proposition that, when assessing the weight of the evidence in Miller’s motion for a new trial, the trial court was required to assess the credibility of witnesses. 2021Miller relies on Alvelo v. State, 288 Ga. 437, 438-39 (1) (704 SE2d 787) (2011), for the proposition that, when assessing the weight of the evidence in Miller’s motion for a new trial, the trial court was required to assess the credibility of witnesses. | 1 | 1 |
Dover v. Higginsgreen2 sentences2015The parties agreed to a provision in the special verdict form to be completed if the jury determined that the Forristers suffered damages based upon a change after February 7, 2003: “When after February 7, 2003 did an adverse change first occur?_, 20_.” As part of its verdict, the jury filled in the blank with “July 25, 2005.” Having agreed to the inclusion of a blank directing the jury to specify a day and date in the verdict form, Oglethorpe and Smarr “will not be heard to complain of error induced by [their] own conduct, nor to complain of errors expressly invited by [them] during the trial 2015The parties agreed to a provision in the special verdict form to be completed if the jury determined that the Forristers suffered damages based upon a change after February 7, 2003: “When after February 7, 2003 did an adverse change first occur?_, 20_.” As part of its verdict, the jury filled in the blank with “July 25, 2005.” Having agreed to the inclusion of a blank directing the jury to specify a day and date in the verdict form, Oglethorpe and Smarr “will not be heard to complain of error induced by [their] own conduct, nor to complain of errors expressly invited by [them] during the trial | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Staffordgreen2 sentences2015The parties agreed to a provision in the special verdict form to be completed if the jury determined that the Forristers suffered damages based upon a change after February 7, 2003: “When after February 7, 2003 did an adverse change first occur?_, 20_.” As part of its verdict, the jury filled in the blank with “July 25, 2005.” Having agreed to the inclusion of a blank directing the jury to specify a day and date in the verdict form, Oglethorpe and Smarr “will not be heard to complain of error induced by [their] own conduct, nor to complain of errors expressly invited by [them] during the trial 2015The parties agreed to a provision in the special verdict form to be completed if the jury determined that the Forristers suffered damages based upon a change after February 7, 2003: “When after February 7, 2003 did an adverse change first occur?_, 20_.” As part of its verdict, the jury filled in the blank with “July 25, 2005.” Having agreed to the inclusion of a blank directing the jury to specify a day and date in the verdict form, Oglethorpe and Smarr “will not be heard to complain of error induced by [their] own conduct, nor to complain of errors expressly invited by [them] during the trial | 1 | 1 |
Darden v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Appellant acknowledges that this enumeration of error “is contingent upon” the issue regarding the admissibility of evidence of prior bad acts 4 after finding that Appellant failed to give proper notice under Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.1, which requires that a defendant notify the State ten days before trial of his intention to introduce evidence of specific acts of violence by the victim against third parties.3 Appellant acknowledges that he failed to provide proper notice, however, and it is well-settled that a trial court has “[broad] discretion in deciding whether to vary the time for 2015Appellant acknowledges that this enumeration of error “is contingent upon” the issue regarding the admissibility of evidence of prior bad acts 4 after finding that Appellant failed to give proper notice under Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.1, which requires that a defendant notify the State ten days before trial of his intention to introduce evidence of specific acts of violence by the victim against third parties.3 Appellant acknowledges that he failed to provide proper notice, however, and it is well-settled that a trial court has “[broad] discretion in deciding whether to vary the time for | 1 | 1 |
Waldrop v. Stategreen2 sentences2012To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, [Anthony] must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance so prejudiced [him] that there is a reasonable likelihood that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial would have been 3 Unlike in Waldrop v. State, 300 Ga. App. 281, 285 (3) ( 684 SE2d 417 ) (2009), and Hiley v. State, 245 Ga. App. 900, 901 ( 539 SE2d 530 ) (2000), there was no evidence that Anthony made an unauthorized entry onto the victim’s property simply for the purpose of loitering there. 12 different. 2012To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, [Anthony] must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance so prejudiced [him] that there is a reasonable likelihood that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial would have been 3 Unlike in Waldrop v. State, 300 Ga. App. 281, 285 (3) ( 684 SE2d 417 ) (2009), and Hiley v. State, 245 Ga. App. 900, 901 ( 539 SE2d 530 ) (2000), there was no evidence that Anthony made an unauthorized entry onto the victim’s property simply for the purpose of loitering there. 12 different. | 1 | 1 |
Landrum v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Bennett v. State, 210 Ga.App. 337 , 436 S.E.2d 40 (1993) ("There is no statutory authority in Georgia that authorizes attorney fees in a criminal action."). [5] Butler v. State, 281 Ga. 310, 311 , 637 S.E.2d 688 (2006); Flint Elec. | 1 | 1 |
Butler v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Bennett v. State, 210 Ga.App. 337 , 436 S.E.2d 40 (1993) ("There is no statutory authority in Georgia that authorizes attorney fees in a criminal action."). [5] Butler v. State, 281 Ga. 310, 311 , 637 S.E.2d 688 (2006); Flint Elec. 2007See Bennett v. State, 210 Ga.App. 337 , 436 S.E.2d 40 (1993) ("There is no statutory authority in Georgia that authorizes attorney fees in a criminal action."). [5] Butler v. State, 281 Ga. 310, 311 , 637 S.E.2d 688 (2006); Flint Elec. | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Bennett v. State, 210 Ga.App. 337 , 436 S.E.2d 40 (1993) ("There is no statutory authority in Georgia that authorizes attorney fees in a criminal action."). [5] Butler v. State, 281 Ga. 310, 311 , 637 S.E.2d 688 (2006); Flint Elec. | 1 | 1 |
Bundren v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Bundren v. State, supra, 247 Ga. at 181 ; Chandler v. State, supra, 204 Ga. App. at 821 . 2 While counsel for appellant at trial voiced objections to other portions of the trial court’s instructions, counsel neither raised the objection currently under scrutiny nor reserved the right to raise additional objections in post-conviction reviews. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences1993In a related enumeration of error, the appellant relies upon Moore v. State, 202 Ga. App. 476, 480 (3) ( 414 SE2d 705 ) (1992), in contending that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the limited purpose for which the testimony regarding the three-year-old child was admitted, notwithstanding the absence of a proper request for such a charge. 1993In a related enumeration of error, the appellant relies upon Moore v. State, 202 Ga. App. 476, 480 (3) ( 414 SE2d 705 ) (1992), in contending that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the limited purpose for which the testimony regarding the three-year-old child was admitted, notwithstanding the absence of a proper request for such a charge. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Randolph v. State
green
2 sentences2013In a related enumeration of error, Ellis contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because the evidence was insufficient to show that he had supervisory authority over the patient-victims, as defined by Randolph, 269 Ga. at 150 . 2013In a related enumeration of error, Ellis contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because the evidence was insufficient to show that he had supervisory authority over the patient-victims, as defined by Randolph, 269 Ga. at 150 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Hiley v. State
green
2 sentences2012To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, [Anthony] must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance so prejudiced [him] that there is a reasonable likelihood that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial would have been 3 Unlike in Waldrop v. State, 300 Ga. App. 281, 285 (3) ( 684 SE2d 417 ) (2009), and Hiley v. State, 245 Ga. App. 900, 901 ( 539 SE2d 530 ) (2000), there was no evidence that Anthony made an unauthorized entry onto the victim’s property simply for the purpose of loitering there. 12 different. 2012To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, [Anthony] must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance so prejudiced [him] that there is a reasonable likelihood that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial would have been 3 Unlike in Waldrop v. State, 300 Ga. App. 281, 285 (3) ( 684 SE2d 417 ) (2009), and Hiley v. State, 245 Ga. App. 900, 901 ( 539 SE2d 530 ) (2000), there was no evidence that Anthony made an unauthorized entry onto the victim’s property simply for the purpose of loitering there. 12 different. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Pless v. State
green
1 sentence2007NOTES [1] In a related enumeration of error, however, Pless argued that the trial court erred in imposing fines and ordering restitution of court-appointed attorney fees "without first making specific findings of fact as to [his ability to pay]." The Court of Appeals summarily rejected that argument, noting: "Pless represented to the [trial] court that he had sufficient means to pay this amount." Pless, supra at 804, 633 S.E.2d 340 . [2] Pless' convictions were affirmed on all other grounds asserted. [3] We note that the holding of the Court of Appeals in Fair, supra, is in direct conflict wit | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Harrison v. Harrison
green
2 sentences2007NOTES [1] In a related enumeration of error, however, Pless argued that the trial court erred in imposing fines and ordering restitution of court-appointed attorney fees "without first making specific findings of fact as to [his ability to pay]." The Court of Appeals summarily rejected that argument, noting: "Pless represented to the [trial] court that he had sufficient means to pay this amount." Pless, supra at 804, 633 S.E.2d 340 . [2] Pless' convictions were affirmed on all other grounds asserted. [3] We note that the holding of the Court of Appeals in Fair, supra, is in direct conflict wit 2007NOTES [1] In a related enumeration of error, however, Pless argued that the trial court erred in imposing fines and ordering restitution of court-appointed attorney fees "without first making specific findings of fact as to [his ability to pay]." The Court of Appeals summarily rejected that argument, noting: "Pless represented to the [trial] court that he had sufficient means to pay this amount." Pless, supra at 804, 633 S.E.2d 340 . [2] Pless' convictions were affirmed on all other grounds asserted. [3] We note that the holding of the Court of Appeals in Fair, supra, is in direct conflict wit | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Collett
green
2 sentences2007NOTES [1] In a related enumeration of error, however, Pless argued that the trial court erred in imposing fines and ordering restitution of court-appointed attorney fees "without first making specific findings of fact as to [his ability to pay]." The Court of Appeals summarily rejected that argument, noting: "Pless represented to the [trial] court that he had sufficient means to pay this amount." Pless, supra at 804, 633 S.E.2d 340 . [2] Pless' convictions were affirmed on all other grounds asserted. [3] We note that the holding of the Court of Appeals in Fair, supra, is in direct conflict wit 2007NOTES [1] In a related enumeration of error, however, Pless argued that the trial court erred in imposing fines and ordering restitution of court-appointed attorney fees "without first making specific findings of fact as to [his ability to pay]." The Court of Appeals summarily rejected that argument, noting: "Pless represented to the [trial] court that he had sufficient means to pay this amount." Pless, supra at 804, 633 S.E.2d 340 . [2] Pless' convictions were affirmed on all other grounds asserted. [3] We note that the holding of the Court of Appeals in Fair, supra, is in direct conflict wit | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Chatman v. Findley
green
2 sentences2007NOTES [1] In a related enumeration of error, however, Pless argued that the trial court erred in imposing fines and ordering restitution of court-appointed attorney fees "without first making specific findings of fact as to [his ability to pay]." The Court of Appeals summarily rejected that argument, noting: "Pless represented to the [trial] court that he had sufficient means to pay this amount." Pless, supra at 804, 633 S.E.2d 340 . [2] Pless' convictions were affirmed on all other grounds asserted. [3] We note that the holding of the Court of Appeals in Fair, supra, is in direct conflict wit 2007NOTES [1] In a related enumeration of error, however, Pless argued that the trial court erred in imposing fines and ordering restitution of court-appointed attorney fees "without first making specific findings of fact as to [his ability to pay]." The Court of Appeals summarily rejected that argument, noting: "Pless represented to the [trial] court that he had sufficient means to pay this amount." Pless, supra at 804, 633 S.E.2d 340 . [2] Pless' convictions were affirmed on all other grounds asserted. [3] We note that the holding of the Court of Appeals in Fair, supra, is in direct conflict wit | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Chandler v. State
green
1 sentence2000See Bundren v. State, supra, 247 Ga. at 181 ; Chandler v. State, supra, 204 Ga. App. at 821 . 2 While counsel for appellant at trial voiced objections to other portions of the trial court’s instructions, counsel neither raised the objection currently under scrutiny nor reserved the right to raise additional objections in post-conviction reviews. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.