Price motion in Georgia

2021Price 1 See also Price v. State, 300 Ga. App. 795 ( 686 SE2d 406 ) (2009) (affirming trial court’s denial of Price’s motion to vacate or correct a void sentence, in which he claimed the State failed to give him proper notice of its intent to seek recidivist punishment). “is not entitled to multiple bites at the apple.” Ross, 310 Ga. App. at 328 ; see also Paradise v. State, 321 Ga. App. 371, 373 ( 740 SE2d 238 ) (2013) (“Although a void sentence may be challenged at any time, this important legal principle is, nevertheless, subject to the equally well established principles of res judicata and

2021Price 1 See also Price v. State, 300 Ga. App. 795 ( 686 SE2d 406 ) (2009) (affirming trial court’s denial of Price’s motion to vacate or correct a void sentence, in which he claimed the State failed to give him proper notice of its intent to seek recidivist punishment). “is not entitled to multiple bites at the apple.” Ross, 310 Ga. App. at 328 ; see also Paradise v. State, 321 Ga. App. 371, 373 ( 740 SE2d 238 ) (2013) (“Although a void sentence may be challenged at any time, this important legal principle is, nevertheless, subject to the equally well established principles of res judicata and

2021Price 1 See also Price v. State, 300 Ga. App. 795 ( 686 SE2d 406 ) (2009) (affirming trial court’s denial of Price’s motion to vacate or correct a void sentence, in which he claimed the State failed to give him proper notice of its intent to seek recidivist punishment). “is not entitled to multiple bites at the apple.” Ross, 310 Ga. App. at 328 ; see also Paradise v. State, 321 Ga. App. 371, 373 ( 740 SE2d 238 ) (2013) (“Although a void sentence may be challenged at any time, this important legal principle is, nevertheless, subject to the equally well established principles of res judicata and

2019Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 347-348 ( 691 SE2d 247 ) 1 See also Price v. State, 300 Ga. App. 795 ( 686 SE2d 406 ) (2009) (affirming trial court’s denial of Price’s motion to vacate or correct a void sentence, in which he claimed the State failed to put him on notice prior to trial of its intent to seek recidivist punishment). (2010); Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 118 ( 676 SE2d 465 ) (2009).

2019Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 347-348 ( 691 SE2d 247 ) 1 See also Price v. State, 300 Ga. App. 795 ( 686 SE2d 406 ) (2009) (affirming trial court’s denial of Price’s motion to vacate or correct a void sentence, in which he claimed the State failed to put him on notice prior to trial of its intent to seek recidivist punishment). (2010); Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 118 ( 676 SE2d 465 ) (2009).

2019Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 347-348 ( 691 SE2d 247 ) 1 See also Price v. State, 300 Ga. App. 795 ( 686 SE2d 406 ) (2009) (affirming trial court’s denial of Price’s motion to vacate or correct a void sentence, in which he claimed the State failed to put him on notice prior to trial of its intent to seek recidivist punishment). (2010); Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 118 ( 676 SE2d 465 ) (2009).

2019Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 347-348 ( 691 SE2d 247 ) 1 See also Price v. State, 300 Ga. App. 795 ( 686 SE2d 406 ) (2009) (affirming trial court’s denial of Price’s motion to vacate or correct a void sentence, in which he claimed the State failed to put him on notice prior to trial of its intent to seek recidivist punishment). (2010); Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 118 ( 676 SE2d 465 ) (2009).

2014“Decisions concerning the presentation of witnesses are matters of trial strategy and do not constitute ineffective assistance when, as here, they are founded on legitimate evidentiary concerns.” 10 In its order denying Price’s motion for new trial, the trial court further noted that, at the new trial hearing, Price had neither testified nor called any of the individuals he claimed should have testified as character witnesses; hence, the trial court correctly determined that Priced had failed to demonstrate the requisite prejudice.11 10 Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 522, 528-529 (6) ( 615 SE2d 532

2014“Decisions concerning the presentation of witnesses are matters of trial strategy and do not constitute ineffective assistance when, as here, they are founded on legitimate evidentiary concerns.” 10 In its order denying Price’s motion for new trial, the trial court further noted that, at the new trial hearing, Price had neither testified nor called any of the individuals he claimed should have testified as character witnesses; hence, the trial court correctly determined that Priced had failed to demonstrate the requisite prejudice.11 10 Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 522, 528-529 (6) ( 615 SE2d 532

2014Ellington, P. J., and Branch, J., concur. 12 See Strickland, supra; Harris, supra at 528 (6) (concluding that trial court did not err in rejecting claim that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to call certain witnesses, where decision was founded on legitimate evidentiary concerns); Roberts v. State, 263 Ga. 807, 808 (2) (b) ( 439 SE2d 911 ) (1994) (concluding that trial court did not err in rejecting claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call certain witnesses, where the decision not to call them was a strategic or tactical decision and appellant d

2014Ellington, P. J., and Branch, J., concur. 12 See Strickland, supra; Harris, supra at 528 (6) (concluding that trial court did not err in rejecting claim that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to call certain witnesses, where decision was founded on legitimate evidentiary concerns); Roberts v. State, 263 Ga. 807, 808 (2) (b) ( 439 SE2d 911 ) (1994) (concluding that trial court did not err in rejecting claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call certain witnesses, where the decision not to call them was a strategic or tactical decision and appellant d

2014“Decisions concerning the presentation of witnesses are matters of trial strategy and do not constitute ineffective assistance when, as here, they are founded on legitimate evidentiary concerns.” 10 In its order denying Price’s motion for new trial, the trial court further noted that, at the new trial hearing, Price had neither testified nor called any of the individuals he claimed should have testified as character witnesses; hence, the trial court correctly determined that Priced had failed to demonstrate the requisite prejudice.11 10 Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 522, 528-529 (6) ( 615 SE2d 532

2014“Decisions concerning the presentation of witnesses are matters of trial strategy and do not constitute ineffective assistance when, as here, they are founded on legitimate evidentiary concerns.” 10 In its order denying Price’s motion for new trial, the trial court further noted that, at the new trial hearing, Price had neither testified nor called any of the individuals he claimed should have testified as character witnesses; hence, the trial court correctly determined that Priced had failed to demonstrate the requisite prejudice.11 10 Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 522, 528-529 (6) ( 615 SE2d 532

2011See Gray v. State, 158 Ga. App. 582 (2) ( 281 SE2d 328 ) (1981) (burglary conviction reversed for failure to charge jury on mistake of fact where defendant testified he was inside the diner after hours because his car broke down, he saw the door was open, and thought someone was inside); Henderson v. State, 141 Ga. App. 430 (4) ( 233 SE2d 505 ) (1977) (mistake of fact instruction required where defendant’s defense was that he entered the store he was accused of burglarizing “thinking it was open and tried subsequently to leave but was unable to because the door had locked”).

2011See Gray v. State, 158 Ga. App. 582 (2) ( 281 SE2d 328 ) (1981) (burglary conviction reversed for failure to charge jury on mistake of fact where defendant testified he was inside the diner after hours because his car broke down, he saw the door was open, and thought someone was inside); Henderson v. State, 141 Ga. App. 430 (4) ( 233 SE2d 505 ) (1977) (mistake of fact instruction required where defendant’s defense was that he entered the store he was accused of burglarizing “thinking it was open and tried subsequently to leave but was unable to because the door had locked”).

2010See Curtis v. State, 285 Ga. App. 298, 301 (1) (a) ( 645 SE2d 705 ) (2007).

2010See Curtis v. State, 285 Ga. App. 298, 301 (1) (a) ( 645 SE2d 705 ) (2007).

2006See generally Smith v. State, 249 Ga. App. 666 ( 549 SE2d 487 ) (2001).

2006See generally Smith v. State, 249 Ga. App. 666 ( 549 SE2d 487 ) (2001).

2006Strozier v. State, 277 Ga. 78, 79 (1) ( 586 SE2d 309 ) (2003).

2006Strozier v. State, 277 Ga. 78, 79 (1) ( 586 SE2d 309 ) (2003).

1996In Boatright v. State, 192 Ga. App. 112, 115-116 (5) ( 385 SE2d 298 ) (1989), we found no error in the trial court’s allowing child victims to testify with their backs to the defendant when defense counsel’s ability to cross-examine the witnesses and the defendant’s ability to assist in his defense was not substantially impaired by an inability to see and hear the children adequately when they testified.

1996In Boatright v. State, 192 Ga. App. 112, 115-116 (5) ( 385 SE2d 298 ) (1989), we found no error in the trial court’s allowing child victims to testify with their backs to the defendant when defense counsel’s ability to cross-examine the witnesses and the defendant’s ability to assist in his defense was not substantially impaired by an inability to see and hear the children adequately when they testified.

1980Moreover, “having read the transcript of the trial, which shows numerous disagreements between... defense counsel with respect to the admission and exclusion of evidence, we conclude that [defendant’s motion] for severance should have been granted . . .” Reeves v. State, 237 Ga. 1, 4 ( 226 SE2d 567 ). 2.

1980Moreover, “having read the transcript of the trial, which shows numerous disagreements between... defense counsel with respect to the admission and exclusion of evidence, we conclude that [defendant’s motion] for severance should have been granted . . .” Reeves v. State, 237 Ga. 1, 4 ( 226 SE2d 567 ). 2.