Leonard motion in Georgia

2023See 8 Nor did the trial court address the issue in denying Leonard’s motion for new trial. 21 also Guffie v. State, 304 Ga. 352, 355-356 (3) ( 818 SE2d 608 ) (2018) (argument waived for purposes of appeal where appellant challenged denial of motion to sever but “never presented [the] argument to the trial court either in his motion to sever or during the hearing on same”).

2023See 8 Nor did the trial court address the issue in denying Leonard’s motion for new trial. 21 also Guffie v. State, 304 Ga. 352, 355-356 (3) ( 818 SE2d 608 ) (2018) (argument waived for purposes of appeal where appellant challenged denial of motion to sever but “never presented [the] argument to the trial court either in his motion to sever or during the hearing on same”).

2023See Blaine, 305 Ga. at 519 (2). 6.

2023See Blaine, 305 Ga. at 519 (2). 6.

2023Indeed, the record supports the trial court’s finding that Leonard failed to present any evidence that his defense was impaired; thus, the trial court properly weighed this factor against Leonard. 14 See Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 63 (2) (b) (iv) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). (e) Balancing the four factors In light of the trial court’s error with respect to the weight afforded to the second factor, our deference to the trial court’s denial of Leonard’s motion is somewhat diminished.

2023Indeed, the record supports the trial court’s finding that Leonard failed to present any evidence that his defense was impaired; thus, the trial court properly weighed this factor against Leonard.14 See Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52, 64 (2) (b) (iv) ( 663 SE2d 189 ) (2008). (e) Balancing the four factors In light of the trial court’s error with respect to the weight afforded to the second factor, our deference to the trial court’s denial of Leonard’s motion is somewhat diminished.

2023Leonard filed in the trial court a “motion in limine to exclude any reference to the circumstances of [Leonard’s] arrest or the charge of possession of marijuana with intent or motion for severance of indictment.” Leonard’s motion focused on the admissibility of evidence surrounding the circumstances of his arrest and only obliquely referenced severance, stating in passing that “the State would have recourse to pursue the drug charge in a later trial in the same manner as when a case is bifurcated in order to prevent prejudice when a defendant is a convicted felon.” And the trial court’s oral

2023Leonard filed in the trial court a “motion in limine to exclude any reference to the circumstances of [Leonard’s] arrest or the charge of possession of marijuana with intent or motion for severance of indictment.” Leonard’s motion focused on the admissibility of evidence surrounding the circumstances of his arrest and only obliquely referenced severance, stating in passing that “the State would have recourse to pursue the drug charge in a later trial in the same manner as when a case is bifurcated in order to prevent prejudice when a defendant is a convicted felon.” And the trial court’s oral

2023See Brooks v. State, 309 Ga. 630, 638 (3) ( 847 SE2d 555 ) (2020) (identifying claims that are subject to plain error review and noting that “[t]his Court has declined to extend plain error analysis to other claims of error in the absence of a specific provision by the General Assembly”). 22 Who [Grimes] said did it is who they went after.

2023See Brooks v. State, 309 Ga. 630, 638 (3) ( 847 SE2d 555 ) (2020) (identifying claims that are subject to plain error review and noting that “[t]his Court has declined to extend plain error analysis to other claims of error in the absence of a specific provision by the General Assembly”). 22 Who [Grimes] said did it is who they went after.

2023Nevertheless, we conclude that “had the trial court used the correct facts and legal analysis, it would have had no discretion to reach a different judgment.” Pickett, 288 Ga. at 679 (2) (d).

2023See Redding, 313 Ga. at 736 (2) (trial court erred by “ruling that [a]ppellant’s probation hold precluded the need to assess prejudice associated with oppressive pretrial incarceration”). 34 the process,” we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Leonard’s motion to dismiss.

2016See Burton, supra, 202 Ga.App. at 677-678 (service of a complaint upon a county may be made on the county’s authorized agent).

2016See Burton, supra, 202 Ga. App. at 678 .

1995“The granting or refusing of a motion for mistrial is necessarily a matter largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and unless it is apparent that a mistrial is essential to the preservation of the right to a fair trial, the exercise of the judge’s discretion will not be interfered with.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Harper v. State, 213 Ga. App. 444, 449 ( 445 SE2d 303 ) (1994).

1995“The granting or refusing of a motion for mistrial is necessarily a matter largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and unless it is apparent that a mistrial is essential to the preservation of the right to a fair trial, the exercise of the judge’s discretion will not be interfered with.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Harper v. State, 213 Ga. App. 444, 449 ( 445 SE2d 303 ) (1994).