enumeration error in Georgia

2025In short, rather than deciding any broader question about whether Appeals to take its narrow analytical path, see Georgia Soc. of Plastic Surgeons, Inc. v. Anderson, 257 Ga. 710, 711 (1987) (explaining that “a ruling that becomes material to an enumeration of error urged by an appellant may be considered by the appellate court without the necessity of a cross-appeal”), but neither was the court required to reach beyond the parties’ framing. 10 an appearance of impropriety can serve as an independent ground for disqualification of public prosecutors, the Court of Appeals’ decision appears to ha

2022It is well established that a trial court has inherent power to revise, correct, or modify a judgment so long as it does so via a motion to modify or vacate filed within the same term of court.10 Of course, the motion here is essentially a motion to set aside, and “[g]enerally, we review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to set aside for 8 See id. (citing Ga. Soc’y of Plastic Surgeons v. Anderson, 257 Ga. 710, 711 (1) ( 363 SE2d 140 ) (1987) (Per Curiam), which held that “a ruling that becomes material to an enumeration of error urged by an appellant may be considered by the appellate court w

1997“On appeal an enumeration of error cannot be enlarged by brief to give appellate viability to an issue not contained in the original enumeration. [Cit.]” Chezem v. State, 199 Ga. App. 869, 870 (2) ( 406 SE2d 522 ) (1991).

1997“On appeal an enumeration of error cannot be enlarged by brief to give appellate viability to an issue not contained in the original enumeration. [Cit.]” Chezem v. State, 199 Ga. App. 869, 870 (2) ( 406 SE2d 522 ) (1991).

2019When an enumeration of error “is not supported by argument or citation of authority, it is deemed abandoned under the rules of each of the Georgia appellate courts.” Felix v. State, 271 Ga. 534 , 539 n.6 ( 523 SE2d 1 ) (1999).

2019When an enumeration of error “is not supported by argument or citation of authority, it is deemed abandoned under the rules of each of the Georgia appellate courts.” Felix v. State, 271 Ga. 534 , 539 n.6 ( 523 SE2d 1 ) (1999).

1998But Kinney has failed to provide any citation to the record to show that the items seized were outside the scope of the warrant; the warrant itself does not appear in the record. 3 “It is a well-established appellate rule that the burden is on the appellant to show error by the record, and when a portion of the evidence bearing upon the issue raised by the enumeration of error[ ] is not brought up so that this court can make its determination from a consideration of it all, an affirmance as to that issue must result.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Ross v. State, 195 Ga. App. 624, 626 (3

1998But Kinney has failed to provide any citation to the record to show that the items seized were outside the scope of the warrant; the warrant itself does not appear in the record. 3 “It is a well-established appellate rule that the burden is on the appellant to show error by the record, and when a portion of the evidence bearing upon the issue raised by the enumeration of error[ ] is not brought up so that this court can make its determination from a consideration of it all, an affirmance as to that issue must result.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Ross v. State, 195 Ga. App. 624, 626 (3

2025Instead, in this enumeration of error, Collins argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions as a matter of constitutional due process. “[I]n the past, in evaluating a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial on the general grounds,” this Court has “performed or referenced a constitutional due process sufficiency-of-the-evidence review under” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979), although many of us 7 question that practice.

2025Instead, in this enumeration of error, Collins argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions as a matter of constitutional due process. “[I]n the past, in evaluating a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial on the general grounds,” this Court has “performed or referenced a constitutional due process sufficiency-of-the-evidence review under” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979), although many of us 7 question that practice.

2012“We need not consider an enumeration of error which addresses the sufficiency of the evidence to convict on a count on which the trial court failed to enter judgment.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Campbell v. State, 311 Ga. App. 865, 865, n. 2 ( 717 SE2d 494 ) (2011); see also Nelson v. State, 277 Ga. App. 92, 96 (1) (b) ( 625 SE2d 465 ) (2005).

2012“We need not consider an enumeration of error which addresses the sufficiency of the evidence to convict on a count on which the trial court failed to enter judgment.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Campbell v. State, 311 Ga. App. 865, 865, n. 2 ( 717 SE2d 494 ) (2011); see also Nelson v. State, 277 Ga. App. 92, 96 (1) (b) ( 625 SE2d 465 ) (2005).

2019Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court's attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section."); Booth v. State , 301 Ga. 678 , 680 (2), 804 S.E.2d 104 (2017) ("[When], as here, a party fails to object to a jury charge, we review the issue for plain error"); White v. State , 291 Ga. 7 , 8 (2), 727 S.E.2d 109 (2012) ("An appellate court is required to review for plain error an alleged jury instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial, provided the enumeration of error is properly enumerated and argued on appeal."). 10 See Boo

2019Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court's attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section."); Booth v. State , 301 Ga. 678 , 680 (2), 804 S.E.2d 104 (2017) ("[When], as here, a party fails to object to a jury charge, we review the issue for plain error"); White v. State , 291 Ga. 7 , 8 (2), 727 S.E.2d 109 (2012) ("An appellate court is required to review for plain error an alleged jury instruction error to which no objection was raised at trial, provided the enumeration of error is properly enumerated and argued on appeal."). 10 See Boo

1994Under the Appellate Practice Act, an enumeration of error can and often will indicate the subject matter of the appellant's argument "`only in the most general way.'" MacDonald v. MacDonald, 156 Ga. App. 565, 568 (1c) ( 275 SE2d 142 ) (1980).

1994Under the Appellate Practice Act, an enumeration of error can and often will indicate the subject matter of the appellant's argument "`only in the most general way.'" MacDonald v. MacDonald, 156 Ga. App. 565, 568 (1c) ( 275 SE2d 142 ) (1980).

2002“An enumeration of error may not be amended after the original filing time has expired.” Parham v. State, 166 Ga. App. 855, 856 (2) ( 305 SE2d 599 ) (1983).

2002“An enumeration of error may not be amended after the original filing time has expired.” Parham v. State, 166 Ga. App. 855, 856 (2) ( 305 SE2d 599 ) (1983).

1991“An enumeration of error cannot be enlarged to include other issues not made therein.” Reese v. State, 139 Ga. App. 630, 631-632 ( 229 SE2d 111 ). 3.

1991“An enumeration of error cannot be enlarged to include other issues not made therein.” Reese v. State, 139 Ga. App. 630, 631-632 ( 229 SE2d 111 ). 3.

2023See de Castro v. Durell, 295 Ga. App. 194, 204 (3) ( 671 SE2d 244 ) (2008) (deeming an enumeration of error abandoned where the appellant failed to cite any legal authority in support thereof); see also Court of Appeals Rule 25 (d) (1) (“Any enumeration of error that is not supported in the brief by citation of authority or argument may be deemed abandoned.”); Gresham v. Harris, 349 Ga. App. 134 , 138 (1), n. 9 ( 825 SE2d 516 ) (2019) (legal analysis “is, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts”) (citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted).

2023See de Castro v. Durell, 295 Ga. App. 194, 204 (3) ( 671 SE2d 244 ) (2008) (deeming an enumeration of error abandoned where the appellant failed to cite any legal authority in support thereof); see also Court of Appeals Rule 25 (d) (1) (“Any enumeration of error that is not supported in the brief by citation of authority or argument may be deemed abandoned.”); Gresham v. Harris, 349 Ga. App. 134 , 138 (1), n. 9 ( 825 SE2d 516 ) (2019) (legal analysis “is, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts”) (citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted).

1995“This assertion is beyond the reasonable scope of appellant’s enumeration of error; an enumeration of error cannot be enlarged by a brief to give appellate viability to an issue not contained in the original enumeration.” Krebsbach v. State, 209 Ga. App. 474, 475 (2) ( 433 SE2d 649 ).

1995“This assertion is beyond the reasonable scope of appellant’s enumeration of error; an enumeration of error cannot be enlarged by a brief to give appellate viability to an issue not contained in the original enumeration.” Krebsbach v. State, 209 Ga. App. 474, 475 (2) ( 433 SE2d 649 ).

1990See State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1, 2 ( 222 SE2d 354 ) (1976). 5.

1990See State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1, 2 ( 222 SE2d 354 ) (1976). 5.

2017But this Court "has jurisdiction to decide only those issues fairly raised by an enumeration of error[.]" Coweta County v. Simmons , 269 Ga. 694 , 695, 507 S.E.2d 440 (1998) ; accord Williams v. State , 320 Ga. App. 831 , 837 (5) n.23, 740 S.E.2d 766 (2013) ; Veolia Envtl.

2017But this Court "has jurisdiction to decide only those issues fairly raised by an enumeration of error[.]" Coweta County v. Simmons , 269 Ga. 694 , 695, 507 S.E.2d 440 (1998) ; accord Williams v. State , 320 Ga. App. 831 , 837 (5) n.23, 740 S.E.2d 766 (2013) ; Veolia Envtl.

2011This enumeration of error is also without merit. (c) Sledge also contends that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to preserve these objections for appellate review by renewing “all objections at the end of the trial and therefore deprived [Sledge] of the right to have his objections and the trial court rulings reviewed as a basis for reversal.” Although we cannot consider this argument because it asserts an issue not enumerated as error, Rider v. State, 226 Ga. 14, 15 (2) ( 172 SE2d 318 ) (1970), we must note that Sledge’s contention asserts an issue that is not the law in this Stat

2011This enumeration of error is also without merit. (c) Sledge also contends that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to preserve these objections for appellate review by renewing “all objections at the end of the trial and therefore deprived [Sledge] of the right to have his objections and the trial court rulings reviewed as a basis for reversal.” Although we cannot consider this argument because it asserts an issue not enumerated as error, Rider v. State, 226 Ga. 14, 15 (2) ( 172 SE2d 318 ) (1970), we must note that Sledge’s contention asserts an issue that is not the law in this Stat

1995However, Query’s “trial counsel were not heard on this issue at the motion for new trial hearing, and for this reason, we decline to address the merits of this enumeration of error. [Cits.]” Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 749, 809 (20) ( 312 SE2d 40 ) (1983). 8.

1995However, Query’s “trial counsel were not heard on this issue at the motion for new trial hearing, and for this reason, we decline to address the merits of this enumeration of error. [Cits.]” Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 749, 809 (20) ( 312 SE2d 40 ) (1983). 8.

1993However, appellant made no objection in the trial court. “ ‘The question of whether [OCGA § 17-8-57] has been violated is not reached unless an objection or motion for mistrial is made.’ Therefore this enumeration of error is without merit.” Driggers v. State, 244 Ga. 160, 162 (2) ( 259 SE2d 133 ) (1979).

1993However, appellant made no objection in the trial court. “ ‘The question of whether [OCGA § 17-8-57] has been violated is not reached unless an objection or motion for mistrial is made.’ Therefore this enumeration of error is without merit.” Driggers v. State, 244 Ga. 160, 162 (2) ( 259 SE2d 133 ) (1979).

2002Inasmuch as it is apparent that Veasley cannot meet the requirements to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel outlined in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984) (an appellant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance was prejudicial to his defense), this enumeration of error lacks merit.

2000However, because we are not certain that O’Brien had a reasonable opportunity to raise this claim earlier, we will consider this enumeration of error. 4 O’Brien does not argue the sufficiency of evidence with respect to the lane violation. 5 Brantley v. State, 230 Ga. App. 651 (1) ( 497 SE2d 399 ) (1998). 6 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); see Forsman v. State, 239 Ga. App. 612 (1) ( 521 SE2d 410 ) (1999). 7 466 U. S. 668, 687 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). 8 Bowley v. State, 261 Ga. 278, 280 (4) ( 404 SE2d 97 ) (1991). 9 Stephens v. State, 265 Ga. 120,

1971Under the authority of Hill v. Willis, 224 Ga. 263 (4) ( 161 SE2d 281 ) and cases following that case, the law of the case as to the final judgment has been established adversely to the appeal "whether right or wrong . . . until set aside or reversed,” and the sole enumeration of error where based on an ancillary ruling is not meritorious.

1971Under the authority of Hill v. Willis, 224 Ga. 263 (4) ( 161 SE2d 281 ) and cases following that case, the law of the case as to the final judgment has been established adversely to the appeal "whether right or wrong . . . until set aside or reversed,” and the sole enumeration of error where based on an ancillary ruling is not meritorious.

2006Accordingly, we deem this enumeration of error abandoned under Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2). 4 See Wilkie v. State, 153 Ga. App. 609 (1) ( 266 SE2d 289 ) (1980) (holding that enumerations were abandoned by the appellant for failure to support them by argument or citation of authority, and that “[a] mere statement of what occurred at trial, and the contentions of the appellant, do[ ] not constitute an argument in support of such contentions”) (citation omitted).

2006Accordingly, we deem this enumeration of error abandoned under Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2). 4 See Wilkie v. State, 153 Ga. App. 609 (1) ( 266 SE2d 289 ) (1980) (holding that enumerations were abandoned by the appellant for failure to support them by argument or citation of authority, and that “[a] mere statement of what occurred at trial, and the contentions of the appellant, do[ ] not constitute an argument in support of such contentions”) (citation omitted).

2014See Lewis v. State, 248 Ga. 566, 566 (1) ( 285 SE2d 179 ) (1981) (holding that the Court of Appeals cannot properly ignore an enumeration of error regarding insufficiency of evidence to support a conviction when contention was made that the evidence was insufficient even prior to exclusion of any improperly admitted evidence).

2014See Lewis v. State, 248 Ga. 566, 566 (1) ( 285 SE2d 179 ) (1981) (holding that the Court of Appeals cannot properly ignore an enumeration of error regarding insufficiency of evidence to support a conviction when contention was made that the evidence was insufficient even prior to exclusion of any improperly admitted evidence).

2013In considering this enumeration of error, we begin by noting that when reviewing the trial court’s factual findings regarding whether the state satisfied the three-prong test mandated by Williams v. State,34 “we apply the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard.”35 And the decision to admit similar-transaction evidence which satisfies the three-prong test is within the trial court’s discretion “and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.”36 Under Williams, to be admissible for the 33 Cf. Butler v. State, ___ Ga. ___, 2013 WL 399133, *5 (2013) (Blackwell, J.) (noting that “comments upon

2013In considering this enumeration of error, we begin by noting that when reviewing the trial court’s factual findings regarding whether the state satisfied the three-prong test mandated by Williams v. State,34 “we apply the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard.”35 And the decision to admit similar-transaction evidence which satisfies the three-prong test is within the trial court’s discretion “and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.”36 Under Williams, to be admissible for the 33 Cf. Butler v. State, ___ Ga. ___, 2013 WL 399133, *5 (2013) (Blackwell, J.) (noting that “comments upon

1997An enumeration of error cannot be enlarged at the appellate level by statements in the briefs of counsel to include issues not made in the enumeration.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Sentry Ins. v. Majeed, 194 Ga. App. 276, 277 (1) ( 390 SE2d 269 ) (1990).

1997An enumeration of error cannot be enlarged at the appellate level by statements in the briefs of counsel to include issues not made in the enumeration.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Sentry Ins. v. Majeed, 194 Ga. App. 276, 277 (1) ( 390 SE2d 269 ) (1990).

1977This enumeration of error is controlled by Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393 ( 207 SE2d 30 ) (1974) and is without merit.

1977This enumeration of error is controlled by Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393 ( 207 SE2d 30 ) (1974) and is without merit.