articulated waiver in Georgia

2001The only burden on the Warden was to address Britt's challenge and show that the "`guilty plea was informed and voluntary, and made with an articulated waiver of the three Boykin rights.' [Cit.]" (Emphasis supplied.) Nash v. State, 271 Ga. 281, 285 , 519 S.E.2d 893 (1999).

2001The only burden on the Warden was to address Britt's challenge and show that the "`guilty plea was informed and voluntary, and made with an articulated waiver of the three Boykin rights.' [Cit.]" (Emphasis supplied.) Nash v. State, 271 Ga. 281, 285 , 519 S.E.2d 893 (1999).

2006Thus, the burden was on the State “to address [Cooper’s] challenge and show that the ‘ “guilty plea[s were] informed and voluntary, and made with an articulated waiver of the three Boykin rights.” (Cit.)’ [Cit.]” (Emphasis in original.) Britt v. Smith, 274 Ga. 611, 612 ( 556 SE2d 435 ) (2001).

2006Thus, the burden was on the State “to address [Cooper’s] challenge and show that the ‘ “guilty plea[s were] informed and voluntary, and made with an articulated waiver of the three Boykin rights.” (Cit.)’ [Cit.]” (Emphasis in original.) Britt v. Smith, 274 Ga. 611, 612 ( 556 SE2d 435 ) (2001).

2023In Towns, we determined that, “[i]n the absence of an articulated standard to mark the line, the best way to find the line is an examination of how we have applied the ‘essential and substantial’ test in prior cases, especially cases like [Towns’s case] that involve[d] the selection of a juror who likely would not otherwise have been chosen for the array.” 307 Ga. at 355 (2) (emphasis added).

2011See Motley v. State, 273 Ga. 732, 733, n. 3 ( 546 SE2d 468 ) (2001) (“The adoption [in Nash] of the burden of proof set forth in Shelton was not an adoption of Louisiana’s requirement, if any, that a guilty plea must be made ‘with an articulated waiver of the three Boykin rights.’ ” (emphasis in original)).

2011See Motley v. State, 273 Ga. 732, 733, n. 3 ( 546 SE2d 468 ) (2001) (“The adoption [in Nash] of the burden of proof set forth in Shelton was not an adoption of Louisiana’s requirement, if any, that a guilty plea must be made ‘with an articulated waiver of the three Boykin rights.’ ” (emphasis in original)).

2006As a result, Johnson has “waived all defenses, known or unknown, by his entry of a voluntary and unconditional. . . plea, including the right to assert the present contention that incriminating evidence was unlawfully seized.” (Citation omitted.) Butler v. State, 212 Ga. App. 698, 699-700 ( 443 SE2d 11 ) (1994).

2006As a result, Johnson has “waived all defenses, known or unknown, by his entry of a voluntary and unconditional. . . plea, including the right to assert the present contention that incriminating evidence was unlawfully seized.” (Citation omitted.) Butler v. State, 212 Ga. App. 698, 699-700 ( 443 SE2d 11 ) (1994).

2005The Court articulated this standard for Georgia: in ruling on whether evidence based on a scientific principle or technique will be admitted, “it is proper for the trial judge to decide whether the procedure or technique in question has reached a scientific stage of verifiable certainty, or in the words of Professor Irving Younger, whether the procedure ‘rests upon the laws of nature.’ ” (Footnote omitted.) Id. at 525 (1).

2005“Once a procedure has been recognized in a substantial number of courts, a trial judge may judicially notice, without receiving evidence, that the procedure has been established with verifiable certainty, or that it rests upon the laws of nature.” Id. at 526 (1).