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 1988–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Consequently, the State met its initial burden, Brown v. State, 244 Ga. App. 544, 544-545 ( 536 SE2d 253 ) (2000), and because Thompson did not raise this issue in any manner during his sentencing, the State had no burden to establish a valid waiver sufficient to satisfy Boykin . 4. 2008Consequently, the State met its initial burden, Brown v. State, 244 Ga. App. 544, 544-545 ( 536 SE2d 253 ) (2000), and because Thompson did not raise this issue in any manner during his sentencing, the State had no burden to establish a valid waiver sufficient to satisfy Boykin . 4. | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Adams v. State, 234 Ga. App. 696, 697 (3) ( 507 SE2d 538 ) (1998). 1999See Adams v. State, 234 Ga. App. 696, 697 (3) ( 507 SE2d 538 ) (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences1996The transcript of the sentencing hearing in the case sub judice is totally devoid of any evidence to support the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court or of any consideration by the trial court of the factors delineated in OCGA § 17-14-10. “ Accordingly, we must reverse that portion of appellant’s sentence which imposes restitution . . . and remand the case to the trial court with direction that a hearing on the issue of restitution be held at which (OCGA § 17-14-9) and the factors in (OCGA § 17-14-10) are to be considered and we further direct that the written finding required by ( 1996The transcript of the sentencing hearing in the case sub judice is totally devoid of any evidence to support the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court or of any consideration by the trial court of the factors delineated in OCGA § 17-14-10. “ Accordingly, we must reverse that portion of appellant’s sentence which imposes restitution . . . and remand the case to the trial court with direction that a hearing on the issue of restitution be held at which (OCGA § 17-14-9) and the factors in (OCGA § 17-14-10) are to be considered and we further direct that the written finding required by ( | 1 | 1 |
Dunn v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Dunn v. State, 208 Ga. App. 197, 198 (4) ( 430 SE2d 50 ) (1993). 1996Dunn v. State, 208 Ga. App. 197, 198 (4) ( 430 SE2d 50 ) (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Stategreen2 sentences1996The transcript of the sentencing hearing in the case sub judice is totally devoid of any evidence to support the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court or of any consideration by the trial court of the factors delineated in OCGA § 17-14-10. “ Accordingly, we must reverse that portion of appellant’s sentence which imposes restitution . . . and remand the case to the trial court with direction that a hearing on the issue of restitution be held at which (OCGA § 17-14-9) and the factors in (OCGA § 17-14-10) are to be considered and we further direct that the written finding required by ( 1996The transcript of the sentencing hearing in the case sub judice is totally devoid of any evidence to support the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court or of any consideration by the trial court of the factors delineated in OCGA § 17-14-10. “ Accordingly, we must reverse that portion of appellant’s sentence which imposes restitution . . . and remand the case to the trial court with direction that a hearing on the issue of restitution be held at which (OCGA § 17-14-9) and the factors in (OCGA § 17-14-10) are to be considered and we further direct that the written finding required by ( | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Stategreen2 sentences1996The transcript of the sentencing hearing in the case sub judice is totally devoid of any evidence to support the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court or of any consideration by the trial court of the factors delineated in OCGA § 17-14-10. “ Accordingly, we must reverse that portion of appellant’s sentence which imposes restitution . . . and remand the case to the trial court with direction that a hearing on the issue of restitution be held at which (OCGA § 17-14-9) and the factors in (OCGA § 17-14-10) are to be considered and we further direct that the written finding required by ( 1996The transcript of the sentencing hearing in the case sub judice is totally devoid of any evidence to support the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court or of any consideration by the trial court of the factors delineated in OCGA § 17-14-10. “ Accordingly, we must reverse that portion of appellant’s sentence which imposes restitution . . . and remand the case to the trial court with direction that a hearing on the issue of restitution be held at which (OCGA § 17-14-9) and the factors in (OCGA § 17-14-10) are to be considered and we further direct that the written finding required by ( | 1 | 1 |
Hardison v. Haslamgreen2 sentences1991An appellate court "`"will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute unless it clearly appears that the point was properly raised in the trial court and passed on." [Cit.]' [Cit.]" Hardison v. Haslam, 250 Ga. 59, 61 ( 295 SE2d 830 ) (1982). 1991An appellate court "`"will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute unless it clearly appears that the point was properly raised in the trial court and passed on." [Cit.]' [Cit.]" Hardison v. Haslam, 250 Ga. 59, 61 ( 295 SE2d 830 ) (1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bridges v. State
green
2 sentences2009Bridges v. State, 279 Ga. 351 (9) ( 613 SE2d 621 ) (2005). 5. 2009Bridges v. State, 279 Ga. 351 (9) ( 613 SE2d 621 ) (2005). 5. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Grant v. State
green
2 sentences1991The transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that after the state had introduced a certified copy of the prior conviction into evidence without objection, appellant's counsel advised the court that it was his belief that "Your Honor shares my view that [OCGA § 16-13-30] as applied to these type of cases is unconstitutional as it violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment." Counsel did not elaborate, and the trial court responded as follows: "The court doesn't agree that it's unconstitutional since the Supreme Court of Georgia has applied it already." (Th 1991The transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that after the state had introduced a certified copy of the prior conviction into evidence without objection, appellant's counsel advised the court that it was his belief that "Your Honor shares my view that [OCGA § 16-13-30] as applied to these type of cases is unconstitutional as it violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment." Counsel did not elaborate, and the trial court responded as follows: "The court doesn't agree that it's unconstitutional since the Supreme Court of Georgia has applied it already." (Th | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hill v. State
green
2 sentences1988The State relies on Hill v. State, 250 Ga. 277 (6) ( 295 SE2d 518 ) (1982), where the notice was also served on the day of trial, and the Supreme Court found it timely, pointing out that OCGA § 17-10-2 (a) “states that ‘only such evidence in aggravation as the state has made known to the defendant prior to his trial shall be admissible.’ Here, the notice was provided prior to trial. [Cit.] Appellant does not contend that the conviction was not his, that he was not represented by counsel, or that the conviction was inadmissible for any other reason.” A significant difference between this case a 1988The State relies on Hill v. State, 250 Ga. 277 (6) ( 295 SE2d 518 ) (1982), where the notice was also served on the day of trial, and the Supreme Court found it timely, pointing out that OCGA § 17-10-2 (a) “states that ‘only such evidence in aggravation as the state has made known to the defendant prior to his trial shall be admissible.’ Here, the notice was provided prior to trial. [Cit.] Appellant does not contend that the conviction was not his, that he was not represented by counsel, or that the conviction was inadmissible for any other reason.” A significant difference between this case a | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.