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.
7 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2008 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Id. at 354-355 (2); see Jones v. State, 280 Ga. App. 287, 291 (4) ( 633 SE2d 806 ) (2006). 2008Id. at 354-355 (2); see Jones v. State, 280 Ga. App. 287, 291 (4) ( 633 SE2d 806 ) (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Absent a showing of prejudice, no inquiry need be made into counsel’s alleged deficiencies.” (Citations omitted.) Harper v. State, 241 Ga. App. 865, 867 (3) ( 528 SE2d 317 ) (2000). “ ‘The trial court’s determination that an accused has not been denied effective assistance of counsel will be affirmed on appeal unless that determination is clearly erroneous.’ [Cit.]” Cox v. State, 242 Ga. App. 334, 336 (3) ( 528 SE2d 871 ) (2000). (a) Davis contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to call an available alibi witness, namely a woman whom Davis asserts could have testified that 2004Absent a showing of prejudice, no inquiry need be made into counsel’s alleged deficiencies.” (Citations omitted.) Harper v. State, 241 Ga. App. 865, 867 (3) ( 528 SE2d 317 ) (2000). “ ‘The trial court’s determination that an accused has not been denied effective assistance of counsel will be affirmed on appeal unless that determination is clearly erroneous.’ [Cit.]” Cox v. State, 242 Ga. App. 334, 336 (3) ( 528 SE2d 871 ) (2000). (a) Davis contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to call an available alibi witness, namely a woman whom Davis asserts could have testified that | 1 | 1 |
Harper v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Absent a showing of prejudice, no inquiry need be made into counsel’s alleged deficiencies.” (Citations omitted.) Harper v. State, 241 Ga. App. 865, 867 (3) ( 528 SE2d 317 ) (2000). “ ‘The trial court’s determination that an accused has not been denied effective assistance of counsel will be affirmed on appeal unless that determination is clearly erroneous.’ [Cit.]” Cox v. State, 242 Ga. App. 334, 336 (3) ( 528 SE2d 871 ) (2000). (a) Davis contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to call an available alibi witness, namely a woman whom Davis asserts could have testified that 2004Absent a showing of prejudice, no inquiry need be made into counsel’s alleged deficiencies.” (Citations omitted.) Harper v. State, 241 Ga. App. 865, 867 (3) ( 528 SE2d 317 ) (2000). “ ‘The trial court’s determination that an accused has not been denied effective assistance of counsel will be affirmed on appeal unless that determination is clearly erroneous.’ [Cit.]” Cox v. State, 242 Ga. App. 334, 336 (3) ( 528 SE2d 871 ) (2000). (a) Davis contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to call an available alibi witness, namely a woman whom Davis asserts could have testified that | 1 | 1 |
Brewer v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Brewer v. State, 224 Ga. App. 656, 657-658 (2) ( 481 SE2d 608 ) (1997). 2000Brewer v. State, 224 Ga. App. 656, 657-658 (2) ( 481 SE2d 608 ) (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Sing v. Stategreen1 sentence1997“Even if [the later objection] was sufficient to preserve an issue regarding the effectiveness of the instruction, it did not serve to preserve the issue regarding the denial of the motion for mistrial, which is the error enumerated on appeal. [Cit.]” Sing v. State, 217 Ga. App. 591, 593 (458 3E2d 493) (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Garcia v. State, 207 Ga. App. 653, 657 (2) (a) ( 428 SE2d 666 ) (1993). 1995Garcia v. State, 207 Ga. App. 653, 657 (2) (a) ( 428 SE2d 666 ) (1993). | 1 | 1 |
McGuire v. Stategreen2 sentences1993In McGuire v. State, 185 Ga. App. 233, 237-238 (3) ( 363 SE2d 850 ), this court held that there was no harmful error in appointing that defendant's trial counsel, against whom an ineffective assistance of counsel claim was pending, to represent him on appeal to this court. 1993In McGuire v. State, 185 Ga. App. 233, 237-238 (3) ( 363 SE2d 850 ), this court held that there was no harmful error in appointing that defendant's trial counsel, against whom an ineffective assistance of counsel claim was pending, to represent him on appeal to this court. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences1993While the taking of an exception to a curative instruction may serve as added insurance to preserve an issue regarding the effectiveness of such instruction (see Harris, supra at 619-620 (3a)), an exception taken to a curative instruction given subsequent to a timely mistrial motion will not serve to preserve the mistrial motion issue on appeal, because “[b]y having failed to renew timely the mistrial motion after [a] curative instruction, appellant has failed to preserve these issues for appellate review.” Id. at 620 (3b). (b) Assuming arguendo the mistrial error was preserved on ap *658 peal 1993While the taking of an exception to a curative instruction may serve as added insurance to preserve an issue regarding the effectiveness of such instruction (see Harris, supra at 619-620 (3a)), an exception taken to a curative instruction given subsequent to a timely mistrial motion will not serve to preserve the mistrial motion issue on appeal, because “[b]y having failed to renew timely the mistrial motion after [a] curative instruction, appellant has failed to preserve these issues for appellate review.” Id. at 620 (3b). (b) Assuming arguendo the mistrial error was preserved on ap *658 peal | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Stategreen2 sentences1993While the taking of an exception to a curative instruction may serve as added insurance to preserve an issue regarding the effectiveness of such instruction (see Harris, supra at 619-620 (3a)), an exception taken to a curative instruction given subsequent to a timely mistrial motion will not serve to preserve the mistrial motion issue on appeal, because “[b]y having failed to renew timely the mistrial motion after [a] curative instruction, appellant has failed to preserve these issues for appellate review.” Id. at 620 (3b). (b) Assuming arguendo the mistrial error was preserved on ap *658 peal 1993While the taking of an exception to a curative instruction may serve as added insurance to preserve an issue regarding the effectiveness of such instruction (see Harris, supra at 619-620 (3a)), an exception taken to a curative instruction given subsequent to a timely mistrial motion will not serve to preserve the mistrial motion issue on appeal, because “[b]y having failed to renew timely the mistrial motion after [a] curative instruction, appellant has failed to preserve these issues for appellate review.” Id. at 620 (3b). (b) Assuming arguendo the mistrial error was preserved on ap *658 peal | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hood v. State
green
2 sentences2008In the first appearance, Hood v. State, 282 Ga. App. 350 ( 638 SE2d 807 ) (2006) (Hood I), we found that we lacked jurisdiction to consider Edward Hood’s allegations concerning the effectiveness of his defense counsel because he failed to raise them in the trial court at the first opportunity, id. at 351-354 (1), and found that Hood failed to object to the trial court’s charge on certainty of identification and thus waived his right to argue it on appeal. 2008In the first appearance, Hood v. State, 282 Ga. App. 350 ( 638 SE2d 807 ) (2006) (Hood I), we found that we lacked jurisdiction to consider Edward Hood’s allegations concerning the effectiveness of his defense counsel because he failed to raise them in the trial court at the first opportunity, id. at 351-354 (1), and found that Hood failed to object to the trial court’s charge on certainty of identification and thus waived his right to argue it on appeal. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.