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 2 courts 1996–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Landers v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Our Supreme Court has clearly stated that the rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised at the earliest practicable moment requires that the claim be raised before appeal if the opportunity to do so is available; that the ability to raise the issue on motion for new trial represents such an opportunity; and that the failure to seize that opportunity is a procedural bar to raising that issue at a later time. 5 (Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Landers v. State, 236 Ga. App. 368, 370 (3) ( 511 SE2d 889 ) (1999). 2000Our Supreme Court has clearly stated that the rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised at the earliest practicable moment requires that the claim be raised before appeal if the opportunity to do so is available; that the ability to raise the issue on motion for new trial represents such an opportunity; and that the failure to seize that opportunity is a procedural bar to raising that issue at a later time. 5 (Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Landers v. State, 236 Ga. App. 368, 370 (3) ( 511 SE2d 889 ) (1999). | 2 | 2 |
Glover v. Stategreen2 sentences1999“Our Supreme Court has clearly stated that ‘the rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised at the earliest practicable moment requires that that claim be raised before appeal if the opportunity to do so is available; that the ability to raise the issue on motion for new trial represents such an opportunity; and that the failure to seize that opportunity is a procedural bar to raising that issue at a later time.’ (Punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Glover v. State, 266 Ga. 183, 184 (2) ( 465 SE2d 659 ) (1996).” Howard v. State, 233 Ga. App. 724, 730 ( 505 SE2d 768 ) (1998). 1999“Our Supreme Court has clearly stated that ‘the rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised at the earliest practicable moment requires that that claim be raised before appeal if the opportunity to do so is available; that the ability to raise the issue on motion for new trial represents such an opportunity; and that the failure to seize that opportunity is a procedural bar to raising that issue at a later time.’ (Punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Glover v. State, 266 Ga. 183, 184 (2) ( 465 SE2d 659 ) (1996).” Howard v. State, 233 Ga. App. 724, 730 ( 505 SE2d 768 ) (1998). | 2 | 2 |
Alford v. Stategreen2 sentences2009If the claim is not raised at the earliest practicable moment, it is waived.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Alford v. State, 293 Ga. App. 512, 515-516 (4) ( 667 SE2d 680 ) (2008). 2009If the claim is not raised at the earliest practicable moment, it is waived.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Alford v. State, 293 Ga. App. 512, 515-516 (4) ( 667 SE2d 680 ) (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Curtis v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Curtis v. State, 275 Ga. 576, 578 (1) ( 571 SE2d 376 ) (2002) (overruling a line of cases in which the Court of Appeals held that a defendant could waive the issue of merger of included offenses by failing to raise it in the trial court). 17 See Henderson v. State, 285 Ga. at 244 (4) (two offenses do not merge as a matter of fact when one crime is completed prior to the commission of the other crime). 18 “The rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised at the earliest practicable moment requires that that claim be raised before appeal if the opportunity to do so is available. 2009See Curtis v. State, 275 Ga. 576, 578 (1) ( 571 SE2d 376 ) (2002) (overruling a line of cases in which the Court of Appeals held that a defendant could waive the issue of merger of included offenses by failing to raise it in the trial court). 17 See Henderson v. State, 285 Ga. at 244 (4) (two offenses do not merge as a matter of fact when one crime is completed prior to the commission of the other crime). 18 “The rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised at the earliest practicable moment requires that that claim be raised before appeal if the opportunity to do so is available. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2005(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 257 Ga. App. 589, 590-591 (3) (571 SE2d571) (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Howard v. Stategreen2 sentences1999“Our Supreme Court has clearly stated that ‘the rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised at the earliest practicable moment requires that that claim be raised before appeal if the opportunity to do so is available; that the ability to raise the issue on motion for new trial represents such an opportunity; and that the failure to seize that opportunity is a procedural bar to raising that issue at a later time.’ (Punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Glover v. State, 266 Ga. 183, 184 (2) ( 465 SE2d 659 ) (1996).” Howard v. State, 233 Ga. App. 724, 730 ( 505 SE2d 768 ) (1998). 1999“Our Supreme Court has clearly stated that ‘the rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised at the earliest practicable moment requires that that claim be raised before appeal if the opportunity to do so is available; that the ability to raise the issue on motion for new trial represents such an opportunity; and that the failure to seize that opportunity is a procedural bar to raising that issue at a later time.’ (Punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Glover v. State, 266 Ga. 183, 184 (2) ( 465 SE2d 659 ) (1996).” Howard v. State, 233 Ga. App. 724, 730 ( 505 SE2d 768 ) (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Dozier v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Sixayaketh v. State, 261 Ga. 690 ( 410 SE2d 112 ) (1991); Dozier v. State, 217 Ga. App. 835, 836 (3) ( 459 SE2d 463 ) (1995); and King v. State, 208 Ga. App. 77, 78-79 (2) ( 430 SE2d 640 ) (1993) are inconsistent with the “axiomatic [rule] that a claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel must be asserted at ‘the earliest practicable moment.’ ” 4 In cases presenting similar but not identical factual contexts as this case, we have made clear that the rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised “at the earliest practicable moment” requires that that claim be raised before appeal if the oppo 1996Sixayaketh v. State, 261 Ga. 690 ( 410 SE2d 112 ) (1991); Dozier v. State, 217 Ga. App. 835, 836 (3) ( 459 SE2d 463 ) (1995); and King v. State, 208 Ga. App. 77, 78-79 (2) ( 430 SE2d 640 ) (1993) are inconsistent with the “axiomatic [rule] that a claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel must be asserted at ‘the earliest practicable moment.’ ” 4 In cases presenting similar but not identical factual contexts as this case, we have made clear that the rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised “at the earliest practicable moment” requires that that claim be raised before appeal if the oppo | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Sixayaketh v. State, 261 Ga. 690 ( 410 SE2d 112 ) (1991); Dozier v. State, 217 Ga. App. 835, 836 (3) ( 459 SE2d 463 ) (1995); and King v. State, 208 Ga. App. 77, 78-79 (2) ( 430 SE2d 640 ) (1993) are inconsistent with the “axiomatic [rule] that a claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel must be asserted at ‘the earliest practicable moment.’ ” 4 In cases presenting similar but not identical factual contexts as this case, we have made clear that the rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised “at the earliest practicable moment” requires that that claim be raised before appeal if the oppo 1996Sixayaketh v. State, 261 Ga. 690 ( 410 SE2d 112 ) (1991); Dozier v. State, 217 Ga. App. 835, 836 (3) ( 459 SE2d 463 ) (1995); and King v. State, 208 Ga. App. 77, 78-79 (2) ( 430 SE2d 640 ) (1993) are inconsistent with the “axiomatic [rule] that a claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel must be asserted at ‘the earliest practicable moment.’ ” 4 In cases presenting similar but not identical factual contexts as this case, we have made clear that the rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised “at the earliest practicable moment” requires that that claim be raised before appeal if the oppo | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sixayaketh v. State
green
2 sentences1996Sixayaketh v. State, 261 Ga. 690 ( 410 SE2d 112 ) (1991); Dozier v. State, 217 Ga. App. 835, 836 (3) ( 459 SE2d 463 ) (1995); and King v. State, 208 Ga. App. 77, 78-79 (2) ( 430 SE2d 640 ) (1993) are inconsistent with the “axiomatic [rule] that a claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel must be asserted at ‘the earliest practicable moment.’ ” 4 In cases presenting similar but not identical factual contexts as this case, we have made clear that the rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised “at the earliest practicable moment” requires that that claim be raised before appeal if the oppo 1996Sixayaketh v. State, 261 Ga. 690 ( 410 SE2d 112 ) (1991); Dozier v. State, 217 Ga. App. 835, 836 (3) ( 459 SE2d 463 ) (1995); and King v. State, 208 Ga. App. 77, 78-79 (2) ( 430 SE2d 640 ) (1993) are inconsistent with the “axiomatic [rule] that a claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel must be asserted at ‘the earliest practicable moment.’ ” 4 In cases presenting similar but not identical factual contexts as this case, we have made clear that the rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised “at the earliest practicable moment” requires that that claim be raised before appeal if the oppo | 1 | 1996–1996 |