Owens motion in Georgia

2020Although he did not style his motion as one for partial summary judgment on the issue of breach and damages, we look at the content of the motion and not its nomenclature. 9677, LLC v. Dwarf House, Inc., 331 Ga. App. 287, 289 (1) ( 771 SE2d 1 ) (2015).

2020Although he did not style his motion as one for partial summary judgment on the issue of breach and damages, we look at the content of the motion and not its nomenclature. 9677, LLC v. Dwarf House, Inc., 331 Ga. App. 287, 289 (1) ( 771 SE2d 1 ) (2015).

2016Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court for a hearing on Owens’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea to be conducted in conformity with the opinion in Fortson, 272 Ga. at 461 (2).

2016Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court for a hearing on Owens’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea to be conducted in conformity with the opinion in Fortson, 272 Ga. at 461 (2).

2016See Walker v. State, 332 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1) ( 771 SE2d 905 ) (2015); Durham v. State, 329 Ga. App. 312, 313 (1) ( 764 SE2d 898 ) (2014); Douglas v. State, 317 Ga. App. 425, 425-426 (1) ( 731 SE2d 109 ) (2012); Kennedy v. State, 267 Ga. App. 314, 314-315 ( 599 SE2d 290 ) (2004). 2.

2016See Walker v. State, 332 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1) ( 771 SE2d 905 ) (2015); Durham v. State, 329 Ga. App. 312, 313 (1) ( 764 SE2d 898 ) (2014); Douglas v. State, 317 Ga. App. 425, 425-426 (1) ( 731 SE2d 109 ) (2012); Kennedy v. State, 267 Ga. App. 314, 314-315 ( 599 SE2d 290 ) (2004). 2.

2016See Walker v. State, 332 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1) ( 771 SE2d 905 ) (2015); Durham v. State, 329 Ga. App. 312, 313 (1) ( 764 SE2d 898 ) (2014); Douglas v. State, 317 Ga. App. 425, 425-426 (1) ( 731 SE2d 109 ) (2012); Kennedy v. State, 267 Ga. App. 314, 314-315 ( 599 SE2d 290 ) (2004). 2.

2016See Walker v. State, 332 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1) ( 771 SE2d 905 ) (2015); Durham v. State, 329 Ga. App. 312, 313 (1) ( 764 SE2d 898 ) (2014); Douglas v. State, 317 Ga. App. 425, 425-426 (1) ( 731 SE2d 109 ) (2012); Kennedy v. State, 267 Ga. App. 314, 314-315 ( 599 SE2d 290 ) (2004). 2.

2016See Walker v. State, 332 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1) ( 771 SE2d 905 ) (2015); Durham v. State, 329 Ga. App. 312, 313 (1) ( 764 SE2d 898 ) (2014); Douglas v. State, 317 Ga. App. 425, 425-426 (1) ( 731 SE2d 109 ) (2012); Kennedy v. State, 267 Ga. App. 314, 314-315 ( 599 SE2d 290 ) (2004). 2.

2016See Walker v. State, 332 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1) ( 771 SE2d 905 ) (2015); Durham v. State, 329 Ga. App. 312, 313 (1) ( 764 SE2d 898 ) (2014); Douglas v. State, 317 Ga. App. 425, 425-426 (1) ( 731 SE2d 109 ) (2012); Kennedy v. State, 267 Ga. App. 314, 314-315 ( 599 SE2d 290 ) (2004). 2.

2016See Walker v. State, 332 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1) ( 771 SE2d 905 ) (2015); Durham v. State, 329 Ga. App. 312, 313 (1) ( 764 SE2d 898 ) (2014); Douglas v. State, 317 Ga. App. 425, 425-426 (1) ( 731 SE2d 109 ) (2012); Kennedy v. State, 267 Ga. App. 314, 314-315 ( 599 SE2d 290 ) (2004). 2.

2016See Walker v. State, 332 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1) ( 771 SE2d 905 ) (2015); Durham v. State, 329 Ga. App. 312, 313 (1) ( 764 SE2d 898 ) (2014); Douglas v. State, 317 Ga. App. 425, 425-426 (1) ( 731 SE2d 109 ) (2012); Kennedy v. State, 267 Ga. App. 314, 314-315 ( 599 SE2d 290 ) (2004). 2.

2012His head instead appears to be covered by a tight-fitting do-rag. 11 Compare Dawson, 283 Ga. at 319 (4) (permitting identification testimony when witness identified defendant by movement, body language, and mannerisms, and defendant gained approximately 50 pounds before trial); Jackson v. State, No. A12A0795, 2012 WL 1940307, at *1, 3 (Ga. App. May 30, 2012) (permitting identification testimony when most of perpetrator’s face was obscured in surveillance video but witness testified that she identified the defendant by her familiarity with his walk and clothing). 8 objection to that testimony w

2012His head instead appears to be covered by a tight-fitting do-rag. 11 Compare Dawson, 283 Ga. at 319 (4) (permitting identification testimony when witness identified defendant by movement, body language, and mannerisms, and defendant gained approximately 50 pounds before trial); Jackson v. State, No. A12A0795, 2012 WL 1940307, at *1, 3 (Ga. App. May 30, 2012) (permitting identification testimony when most of perpetrator’s face was obscured in surveillance video but witness testified that she identified the defendant by her familiarity with his walk and clothing). 8 objection to that testimony w

2021See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (7); Balkcom v. State, 227 Ga. App. 327, 329 ( 489 SE2d 129 ) (1997).

2021See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (7); Balkcom v. State, 227 Ga. App. 327, 329 ( 489 SE2d 129 ) (1997).

2015See Dawson v. State, 283 Ga. 315, 316-317 (2) ( 658 SE2d 755 ) (2008) (affirming the trial court’s exclusion of proffered evidence implicating a third party because it did nothing more than “raise a conjectural inference that another person committed the [crime]”); Boatman v. State, 272 Ga. 139, 141 (2) (527 *208 SE2d 560) (2000) (holding that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence that “merely offered speculation or conjecture that the third party could have been involved in the crimes at issue”); Johnson v. State, 331 Ga. App. 134, 138 ( 770 SE2d 236 ) (2015) (affirming the trial

2015See Dawson v. State, 283 Ga. 315, 316-317 (2) ( 658 SE2d 755 ) (2008) (affirming the trial court’s exclusion of proffered evidence implicating a third party because it did nothing more than “raise a conjectural inference that another person committed the [crime]”); Boatman v. State, 272 Ga. 139, 141 (2) (527 *208 SE2d 560) (2000) (holding that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence that “merely offered speculation or conjecture that the third party could have been involved in the crimes at issue”); Johnson v. State, 331 Ga. App. 134, 138 ( 770 SE2d 236 ) (2015) (affirming the trial

2015See Branch v. State, 255 Ga. App. 596, 598 ( 565 SE2d 910 ) (2002) (“[T]here is no requirement that the drug allegedly being distributed or possessed in the indicted offense be the same drug distributed or possessed in the similar transaction.”); Willis v. State, 199 Ga. App. 658, 659 (1) ( 405 SE2d 739 ) (1991) (holding trial court did not err in allowing evidence of defendant’s prior conviction of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute in his trial for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute); see also Bailey v. State, 259 Ga. App. 293, 297 (5) ( 576 SE2d 668 ) (20

2015See Branch v. State, 255 Ga. App. 596, 598 ( 565 SE2d 910 ) (2002) (“[T]here is no requirement that the drug allegedly being distributed or possessed in the indicted offense be the same drug distributed or possessed in the similar transaction.”); Willis v. State, 199 Ga. App. 658, 659 (1) ( 405 SE2d 739 ) (1991) (holding trial court did not err in allowing evidence of defendant’s prior conviction of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute in his trial for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute); see also Bailey v. State, 259 Ga. App. 293, 297 (5) ( 576 SE2d 668 ) (20

2015See Branch v. State, 255 Ga. App. 596, 598 ( 565 SE2d 910 ) (2002) (“[T]here is no requirement that the drug allegedly being distributed or possessed in the indicted offense be the same drug distributed or possessed in the similar transaction.”); Willis v. State, 199 Ga. App. 658, 659 (1) ( 405 SE2d 739 ) (1991) (holding trial court did not err in allowing evidence of defendant’s prior conviction of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute in his trial for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute); see also Bailey v. State, 259 Ga. App. 293, 297 (5) ( 576 SE2d 668 ) (20

2015See Branch v. State, 255 Ga. App. 596, 598 ( 565 SE2d 910 ) (2002) (“[T]here is no requirement that the drug allegedly being distributed or possessed in the indicted offense be the same drug distributed or possessed in the similar transaction.”); Willis v. State, 199 Ga. App. 658, 659 (1) ( 405 SE2d 739 ) (1991) (holding trial court did not err in allowing evidence of defendant’s prior conviction of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute in his trial for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute); see also Bailey v. State, 259 Ga. App. 293, 297 (5) ( 576 SE2d 668 ) (20

2015See Branch v. State, 255 Ga. App. 596, 598 ( 565 SE2d 910 ) (2002) (“[T]here is no requirement that the drug allegedly being distributed or possessed in the indicted offense be the same drug distributed or possessed in the similar transaction.”); Willis v. State, 199 Ga. App. 658, 659 (1) ( 405 SE2d 739 ) (1991) (holding trial court did not err in allowing evidence of defendant’s prior conviction of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute in his trial for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute); see also Bailey v. State, 259 Ga. App. 293, 297 (5) ( 576 SE2d 668 ) (20

2015See Branch v. State, 255 Ga. App. 596, 598 ( 565 SE2d 910 ) (2002) (“[T]here is no requirement that the drug allegedly being distributed or possessed in the indicted offense be the same drug distributed or possessed in the similar transaction.”); Willis v. State, 199 Ga. App. 658, 659 (1) ( 405 SE2d 739 ) (1991) (holding trial court did not err in allowing evidence of defendant’s prior conviction of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute in his trial for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute); see also Bailey v. State, 259 Ga. App. 293, 297 (5) ( 576 SE2d 668 ) (20

2015See Dawson v. State, 283 Ga. 315, 316-317 (2) ( 658 SE2d 755 ) (2008) (affirming the trial court’s exclusion of proffered evidence implicating a third party because it did nothing more than “raise a conjectural inference that another person committed the [crime]”); Boatman v. State, 272 Ga. 139, 141 (2) (527 *208 SE2d 560) (2000) (holding that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence that “merely offered speculation or conjecture that the third party could have been involved in the crimes at issue”); Johnson v. State, 331 Ga. App. 134, 138 ( 770 SE2d 236 ) (2015) (affirming the trial

2012His head instead appears to be covered by a tight-fitting do-rag. 11 Compare Dawson, 283 Ga. at 319 (4) (permitting identification testimony when witness identified defendant by movement, body language, and mannerisms, and defendant gained approximately 50 pounds before trial); Jackson v. State, No. A12A0795, 2012 WL 1940307, at *1, 3 (Ga. App. May 30, 2012) (permitting identification testimony when most of perpetrator’s face was obscured in surveillance video but witness testified that she identified the defendant by her familiarity with his walk and clothing). 8 objection to that testimony w

2012His head instead appears to be covered by a tight-fitting do-rag. 11 Compare Dawson, 283 Ga. at 319 (4) (permitting identification testimony when witness identified defendant by movement, body language, and mannerisms, and defendant gained approximately 50 pounds before trial); Jackson v. State, No. A12A0795, 2012 WL 1940307, at *1, 3 (Ga. App. May 30, 2012) (permitting identification testimony when most of perpetrator’s face was obscured in surveillance video but witness testified that she identified the defendant by her familiarity with his walk and clothing). 8 objection to that testimony w

2012His head instead appears to be covered by a tight-fitting do-rag. 11 Compare Dawson, 283 Ga. at 319 (4) (permitting identification testimony when witness identified defendant by movement, body language, and mannerisms, and defendant gained approximately 50 pounds before trial); Jackson v. State, No. A12A0795, 2012 WL 1940307, at *1, 3 (Ga. App. May 30, 2012) (permitting identification testimony when most of perpetrator’s face was obscured in surveillance video but witness testified that she identified the defendant by her familiarity with his walk and clothing). 8 objection to that testimony w

2012His head instead appears to be covered by a tight-fitting do-rag. 11 Compare Dawson, 283 Ga. at 319 (4) (permitting identification testimony when witness identified defendant by movement, body language, and mannerisms, and defendant gained approximately 50 pounds before trial); Jackson v. State, No. A12A0795, 2012 WL 1940307, at *1, 3 (Ga. App. May 30, 2012) (permitting identification testimony when most of perpetrator’s face was obscured in surveillance video but witness testified that she identified the defendant by her familiarity with his walk and clothing). 8 objection to that testimony w

2012His head instead appears to be covered by a tight-fitting do-rag. 11 Compare Dawson, 283 Ga. at 319 (4) (permitting identification testimony when witness identified defendant by movement, body language, and mannerisms, and defendant gained approximately 50 pounds before trial); Jackson v. State, No. A12A0795, 2012 WL 1940307, at *1, 3 (Ga. App. May 30, 2012) (permitting identification testimony when most of perpetrator’s face was obscured in surveillance video but witness testified that she identified the defendant by her familiarity with his walk and clothing). 8 objection to that testimony w

2012His head instead appears to be covered by a tight-fitting do-rag. 11 Compare Dawson, 283 Ga. at 319 (4) (permitting identification testimony when witness identified defendant by movement, body language, and mannerisms, and defendant gained approximately 50 pounds before trial); Jackson v. State, No. A12A0795, 2012 WL 1940307, at *1, 3 (Ga. App. May 30, 2012) (permitting identification testimony when most of perpetrator’s face was obscured in surveillance video but witness testified that she identified the defendant by her familiarity with his walk and clothing). 8 objection to that testimony w

2012His head instead appears to be covered by a tight-fitting do-rag. 11 Compare Dawson, 283 Ga. at 319 (4) (permitting identification testimony when witness identified defendant by movement, body language, and mannerisms, and defendant gained approximately 50 pounds before trial); Jackson v. State, No. A12A0795, 2012 WL 1940307, at *1, 3 (Ga. App. May 30, 2012) (permitting identification testimony when most of perpetrator’s face was obscured in surveillance video but witness testified that she identified the defendant by her familiarity with his walk and clothing). 8 objection to that testimony w

2012His head instead appears to be covered by a tight-fitting do-rag. 11 Compare Dawson, 283 Ga. at 319 (4) (permitting identification testimony when witness identified defendant by movement, body language, and mannerisms, and defendant gained approximately 50 pounds before trial); Jackson v. State, No. A12A0795, 2012 WL 1940307, at *1, 3 (Ga. App. May 30, 2012) (permitting identification testimony when most of perpetrator’s face was obscured in surveillance video but witness testified that she identified the defendant by her familiarity with his walk and clothing). 8 objection to that testimony w

2011See id. at 110-111 (1) (Because the officer who stopped the defendant was transporting another suspect, he had to call a dispatcher and ask for assistance.

2007Phipps and Mikell, JJ., concur. 1 (Citations omitted.) Duty v. State, 254 Ga. App. 727 ( 563 SE2d 558 ) (2002). 2 State v. Burnett, 220 Ga. App. 133, 133-134 ( 469 SE2d 324 ) (1996). 3 Id. at 134 . 4 (Citation omitted.) Duty, supra at 728 . 5 See Robertson v. State, 236 Ga. App. 68, 69-70 ( 510 SE2d 914 ) (1999). 6 See Lavelle v. State, 250 Ga. 224, 227 (3) ( 297 SE2d 234 ) (1982). 7 See State v. Goodman, 220 Ga. App. 169, 170 (1) ( 469 SE2d 327 ) (1996).

2007Phipps and Mikell, JJ., concur. 1 (Citations omitted.) Duty v. State, 254 Ga. App. 727 ( 563 SE2d 558 ) (2002). 2 State v. Burnett, 220 Ga. App. 133, 133-134 ( 469 SE2d 324 ) (1996). 3 Id. at 134 . 4 (Citation omitted.) Duty, supra at 728 . 5 See Robertson v. State, 236 Ga. App. 68, 69-70 ( 510 SE2d 914 ) (1999). 6 See Lavelle v. State, 250 Ga. 224, 227 (3) ( 297 SE2d 234 ) (1982). 7 See State v. Goodman, 220 Ga. App. 169, 170 (1) ( 469 SE2d 327 ) (1996).

2007Phipps and Mikell, JJ., concur. 1 (Citations omitted.) Duty v. State, 254 Ga. App. 727 ( 563 SE2d 558 ) (2002). 2 State v. Burnett, 220 Ga. App. 133, 133-134 ( 469 SE2d 324 ) (1996). 3 Id. at 134 . 4 (Citation omitted.) Duty, supra at 728 . 5 See Robertson v. State, 236 Ga. App. 68, 69-70 ( 510 SE2d 914 ) (1999). 6 See Lavelle v. State, 250 Ga. 224, 227 (3) ( 297 SE2d 234 ) (1982). 7 See State v. Goodman, 220 Ga. App. 169, 170 (1) ( 469 SE2d 327 ) (1996).

2007Phipps and Mikell, JJ., concur. 1 (Citations omitted.) Duty v. State, 254 Ga. App. 727 ( 563 SE2d 558 ) (2002). 2 State v. Burnett, 220 Ga. App. 133, 133-134 ( 469 SE2d 324 ) (1996). 3 Id. at 134 . 4 (Citation omitted.) Duty, supra at 728 . 5 See Robertson v. State, 236 Ga. App. 68, 69-70 ( 510 SE2d 914 ) (1999). 6 See Lavelle v. State, 250 Ga. 224, 227 (3) ( 297 SE2d 234 ) (1982). 7 See State v. Goodman, 220 Ga. App. 169, 170 (1) ( 469 SE2d 327 ) (1996).

2007Phipps and Mikell, JJ., concur. 1 (Citations omitted.) Duty v. State, 254 Ga. App. 727 ( 563 SE2d 558 ) (2002). 2 State v. Burnett, 220 Ga. App. 133, 133-134 ( 469 SE2d 324 ) (1996). 3 Id. at 134 . 4 (Citation omitted.) Duty, supra at 728 . 5 See Robertson v. State, 236 Ga. App. 68, 69-70 ( 510 SE2d 914 ) (1999). 6 See Lavelle v. State, 250 Ga. 224, 227 (3) ( 297 SE2d 234 ) (1982). 7 See State v. Goodman, 220 Ga. App. 169, 170 (1) ( 469 SE2d 327 ) (1996).

2007Phipps and Mikell, JJ., concur. 1 (Citations omitted.) Duty v. State, 254 Ga. App. 727 ( 563 SE2d 558 ) (2002). 2 State v. Burnett, 220 Ga. App. 133, 133-134 ( 469 SE2d 324 ) (1996). 3 Id. at 134 . 4 (Citation omitted.) Duty, supra at 728 . 5 See Robertson v. State, 236 Ga. App. 68, 69-70 ( 510 SE2d 914 ) (1999). 6 See Lavelle v. State, 250 Ga. 224, 227 (3) ( 297 SE2d 234 ) (1982). 7 See State v. Goodman, 220 Ga. App. 169, 170 (1) ( 469 SE2d 327 ) (1996).

2007Phipps and Mikell, JJ., concur. 1 (Citations omitted.) Duty v. State, 254 Ga. App. 727 ( 563 SE2d 558 ) (2002). 2 State v. Burnett, 220 Ga. App. 133, 133-134 ( 469 SE2d 324 ) (1996). 3 Id. at 134 . 4 (Citation omitted.) Duty, supra at 728 . 5 See Robertson v. State, 236 Ga. App. 68, 69-70 ( 510 SE2d 914 ) (1999). 6 See Lavelle v. State, 250 Ga. 224, 227 (3) ( 297 SE2d 234 ) (1982). 7 See State v. Goodman, 220 Ga. App. 169, 170 (1) ( 469 SE2d 327 ) (1996).

2007Phipps and Mikell, JJ., concur. 1 (Citations omitted.) Duty v. State, 254 Ga. App. 727 ( 563 SE2d 558 ) (2002). 2 State v. Burnett, 220 Ga. App. 133, 133-134 ( 469 SE2d 324 ) (1996). 3 Id. at 134 . 4 (Citation omitted.) Duty, supra at 728 . 5 See Robertson v. State, 236 Ga. App. 68, 69-70 ( 510 SE2d 914 ) (1999). 6 See Lavelle v. State, 250 Ga. 224, 227 (3) ( 297 SE2d 234 ) (1982). 7 See State v. Goodman, 220 Ga. App. 169, 170 (1) ( 469 SE2d 327 ) (1996).

2000“When failure to perform a promised act is coupled with evidence that the promisor made the promise with the intention not to perform, inceptive fraud is shown.” (Citation omitted.) Batchelor v. Tucker, 184 Ga. App. 761, 763 (2) ( 362 SE2d 493 ) (1987).

2000“When failure to perform a promised act is coupled with evidence that the promisor made the promise with the intention not to perform, inceptive fraud is shown.” (Citation omitted.) Batchelor v. Tucker, 184 Ga. App. 761, 763 (2) ( 362 SE2d 493 ) (1987).