Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed
Overruled
Christian Evans Hughes v. State
(2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence high
This conforms to the Supreme Court of Georgia’s explanation that “[a]s to sentencing, each count stands alone; thus, when a trial court considers the appropriate sentence for Count 1 of an indictment, it is the only criminal charge at issue, and not any other counts in the indictment.” Evans v. State, 300 Ga. 271, 276 ( 794 SE2d 40 ) (2016). 9 248 Ga. 183 ( 281 SE2d 604 ) (1981). 10 Id. at 185 (4), citing United States v. Benz, 282 U. S. 304 (51 SC 113, 75 LE 354) (1931), Higdon v. Cooper, 247 Ga. 746 ( 279 SE2d 451 ) (1981), overruled by Wilford v. State, 278 Ga. 718, 721, n.14 ( 606 SE…
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Hardesty
(2×)
Wash. · 1996 · signal: but see · confidence high
Cir. 1987); United States v. Earley, 816 F.2d 1428, 1433 (10th Cir. 1987) (court could not correct sentence five months after rendering it); United States v. Arrellano-Rios, 799 F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir. 1986) (expectation of finality arises upon completion of sentence); State v. Gaddy, 110 N.M. 120 , 792 P.2d 1163 (Ct. App. N.M. 1990); State v. Carvajal, 147 Ariz. 307, 310 , 709 P.2d 1366, 1369 (1985) (majority of cases holds the double jeopardy clause does not bar subsequent resentencing "where a defendant through fraud or collusion actively engineered an inadequate sentence”); but see Higdo…
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Hardesty
(2×)
Wash. · 1996 · signal: but see · confidence high
In United States v. Jones, 722 F.2d 632, 638 (11th Cir.1983), the court stated a defendant has an expectation of finality in the sentence once she or he begins to serve it, unless a review process is employed or the defendant "intentionally deceive[d] the sentencing authority or thwart[ed] the sentencing process." See United States v. Daddino, 5 F.3d 262, 265 (7th Cir.1993) (legitimate expectation of finality in completed sentence); United States v. Rico, 902 F.2d 1065, 1068 (2d Cir.) (no expectation of finality where sentence is served but time for review has not expired), cert. denied, 498 U…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stanli Owens v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
About 40 seconds later, the front seat passenger and an officer walked to that same door of Officer Pugh’s vehicle; the officer opened the door of the patrol vehicle, as the front seat passenger stood on 2 Walker v. State, 247 Ga. 746, 748-749 (2) ( 280 SE2d 333 ) (1981), citing Jackson, supra. After his convictions for possession of methamphetamine, driving while his license was suspended, and driving a vehicle with defective equipment, Owens moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied. 2 the other side of the door.
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris v. State
(2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: accord · confidence high
Thus, we find the legal principles expressed in England and Entrekin more persuasive in this instance. (c) It is a well-established rule that “once the defendant begins to serve his sentence it may not be increased.” England v. Newton, supra at 536, citing Inman v. State, 124 Ga. App. 190 ( 183 SE2d 413 ); accord Higdon v. Cooper, 247 Ga. 746 ( 279 SE2d 451 ); Howell v. State, 160 Ga. App. 562 ( 287 SE2d 573 ); compare Entrekin v. State, supra, with Turnipseed v. State, 147 Ga. App. 735 ( 250 SE2d 186 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Castillo v. State
(2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Higdon v. Cooper, 247 Ga. 746 ( 279 SE2d 451 ) (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McClinic v. State
(2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Higdon v. Cooper, 247 Ga. 746 ( 279 SE2d 451 ) (1981); Henderson v. State, 162 Ga. App. 320 (5) ( 292 SE2d 77 ) (1982).