punishment violation in Georgia

1981Citing North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (89 SC 2072, 23 LE2d 656) (1969), appellant urges that in the absence of an affirmative statement in the record by the court of the reasons underlying the decision to increase the punishment it was error to impose the “harsher” sentence after trial.

1981Citing North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (89 SC 2072, 23 LE2d 656) (1969), appellant urges that in the absence of an affirmative statement in the record by the court of the reasons underlying the decision to increase the punishment it was error to impose the “harsher” sentence after trial.

2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004).

2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II) and 8.4 (a) (4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 ( 651 SE2d 80 ) (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 ( 629 SE2d 809 ) (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients’ names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 ( 602 SE2d 636 ) (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 ( 599 SE2d 185 ) (2004).

2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004).

2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004).

2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004).

2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004).

2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004).

2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004).

2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004).

2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II) and 8.4 (a) (4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 ( 651 SE2d 80 ) (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 ( 629 SE2d 809 ) (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients’ names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 ( 602 SE2d 636 ) (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 ( 599 SE2d 185 ) (2004).

1985In Brieswick v. City of Brunswick, 51 Ga. 639, 642 (1874), the Supreme Court held: “The city council have the power, under its charter, to prescribe the punishment for a violation of the ordinances of the city, either by fine or by imprisonment.

1959An attempt to commit a crime punishable by imprisonment and labor in the penitentiary for not less than one year is a misdemeanor under Code § 27-2507(5) only as therein stated “in cases where no punishment is otherwise provided for the punishment of such attempt.” The language in Taylor v. State, 44 Ga. App. 387 , supra, which is cited by the plaintiff in error, to the effect that an attempt to commit the crime of bribery is a, misdemeanor, was written at a time when the punishment for violation of both Code §§ 26-4101 and 26-4102 was mismemeanor punishment.

1922Bentley v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 152 Ga. 836 , 839 .( 111 S. E. 379 ); Brown v. Erie Railroad Company, 87 N. J.

1922Bentley v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 152 Ga. 836 , 839 .( 111 S. E. 379 ); Brown v. Erie Railroad Company, 87 N. J.

1910The presence of the intent to defraud at the time the advances are procured, as was pointed out in Patterson v. State, 1 Ga. App. 782 ( 58 S. E. 254 ), is the only thing which prevents the punishment for violation of the act of 1903 from being mere imprisonment for debt, and therefore violative of the constitution; and in Mulkey v. State, 1 Ga. App. 521 ( 57 S. E. 1022 ), we expressly held that it is the duty of the court to instruct the jury, even in the absence of a written request, that in order to authorize a conviction the intention to cheat and swindle the prosecutor must have existed on

1910The presence of the intent to defraud at the time the advances are procured, as was pointed out in Patterson v. State, 1 Ga. App. 782 ( 58 S. E. 254 ), is the only thing which prevents the punishment for violation of the act of 1903 from being mere imprisonment for debt, and therefore violative of the constitution; and in Mulkey v. State, 1 Ga. App. 521 ( 57 S. E. 1022 ), we expressly held that it is the duty of the court to instruct the jury, even in the absence of a written request, that in order to authorize a conviction the intention to cheat and swindle the prosecutor must have existed on

1910The presence of the intent to defraud at the time the advances are procured, as was pointed out in Patterson v. State, 1 Ga. App. 782 ( 58 S. E. 254 ), is the only thing which prevents the punishment for violation of the act of 1903 from being mere imprisonment for debt, and therefore violative of the constitution; and in Mulkey v. State, 1 Ga. App. 521 ( 57 S. E. 1022 ), we expressly held that it is the duty of the court to instruct the jury, even in the absence of a written request, that in order to authorize a conviction the intention to cheat and swindle the prosecutor must have existed on