Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 17-10-35.1 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 17-10-35.1 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 17-10-35.1

TITLE 17 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Section 10. Sentence and Punishment, 17-10-1 through 17-10-71.

ARTICLE 2 DEATH PENALTY GENERALLY

17-10-35.1. Review of pretrial proceedings when death penalty is sought; reports investigating reversible error; transmittal of reports to Supreme Court; orders regarding review; Attorney General assistance; res judicata; applicability; waiver of rights.

  1. In cases in which the death penalty is sought, there may be a review of all pretrial proceedings by the Supreme Court upon a determination by the trial judge under Code Section 17-10-35.2 that such review is appropriate. The review shall be initiated by the trial judge's filing in the office of the clerk of superior court and delivering to the parties a report certifying that all pretrial proceedings in the case have been completed and that the case stands ready for trial. Within ten days after the filing of the report or the receipt of transcripts of the proceedings, whichever is later, the prosecutor and the defendant may each file with the clerk of superior court and serve upon the opposing party a report identifying all areas of the pretrial proceedings with respect to which reversible error may arguably have occurred. Either party may consolidate with such report an application for appeal with respect to any order, decision, or judgment entered in the case. Any such application for appeal shall be in the form otherwise appropriate under subsection (b) of Code Section 5-6-34, but:
    1. Any such application for appeal shall be filed with the clerk of superior court rather than the clerk of the Supreme Court;
    2. The opposing party shall not be required or permitted to respond to such an application for appeal; and
    3. No certificate of immediate review shall be required for the filing of such application for appeal.
  2. The reports of the trial judge, prosecutor, and defendant under subsection (a) of this Code section shall be in the form of standard questionnaires prepared and supplied by the Supreme Court. Such questionnaires shall be designed to determine whether there is arguably any existence of reversible error with respect to any of the following matters:
    1. Any proceedings with respect to change of venue;
    2. Any proceedings with respect to recusal of the trial judge;
    3. Any challenge to the jury array;
    4. Any motion to suppress evidence;
    5. Any motion for psychiatric or other medical evaluation; and
    6. Any other matter deemed appropriate by the Supreme Court.
  3. Upon the filing of the reports of the parties, the clerk of superior court shall transmit to the Supreme Court the report of the trial judge, the transcripts of proceedings, and the reports of the parties together with any application for appeal consolidated therewith. A copy of all of the foregoing shall also be delivered by the clerk of superior court to the Attorney General.
  4. The Supreme Court shall issue an order granting review of the pretrial proceedings, or portions thereof, or denying review within 45 days of the date on which the case was received. The order of the Supreme Court shall identify the matters which shall be subject to review, and such matters may include, but need not be limited to, any matters called to the court's attention in any of the reports or in any application for appeal. No notice of appeal shall be required to be filed if review of the pretrial proceedings is granted. An order granting review of pretrial proceedings shall specify the period of time within which each party shall file briefs and reply briefs with respect to the matters identified in the Supreme Court's order granting review. The Supreme Court may order oral argument or may render a decision on the record and the briefs.
  5. If requested by the district attorney, the Attorney General shall assist in the review and appeal provided for in this Code section.
  6. Review of any matter under this Code section shall, as to any question passed on in such review, be res judicata as to such question and shall be deemed to be the law of the case.
  7. The procedure under this Code section shall not apply to any ruling or order made, invoked, or sought subsequent to the filing of the report of the trial judge.
  8. The failure of either party to assert the rights given in this Code section, or the failure of the Supreme Court to grant review, shall not waive the right to posttrial review of any question review of which could be sought under this Code section and shall not constitute an adjudication as to such question.

(Code 1981, §17-10-35.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 1437, § 4; Ga. L. 2010, p. 420, § 1/HB 323.)

Cross references.

- Issues for review, Ga. S. Ct. R. 37.

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2010, p. 420, § 3/HB 323, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that the amendment of this Code section shall apply to any case docketed on or after July 1, 2010.

Law reviews.

- For article, "A Study of the Unified Appeal Procedure in Georgia," see 23 Ga. L. Rev. 185 (1988). For annual survey of appellate practice and procedure, see 40 Mercer L. Rev. 51 (1988). For annual survey on the death penalty, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 109 (2012).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Victim-impact evidence warranted death sentence reversal.

- Prosecutor's use of victim-impact evidence concerning the personal characteristics of the victim and the psychological, emotional, and physical impact of the crime on the victim's family attempted to introduce evidence of a kind never before approved by the court without pretrial, interim appellate review warranting reversal of the death sentence in accordance with Sermons v. State , 262 Ga. 286 (1992). Moore v. State, 263 Ga. 11, 427 S.E.2d 766 (1993).

Cited in Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278, 393 S.E.2d 436 (1990); Mobley v. State, 262 Ga. 808, 426 S.E.2d 150 (1993); Livingston v. State, 264 Ga. 402, 444 S.E.2d 748 (1994); Southeastern Newspapers Corp. v. State, 265 Ga. 223, 454 S.E.2d 452 (1995); Ramirez v. State, 276 Ga. 158, 575 S.E.2d 462 (2003); Harper v. State, 283 Ga. 102, 657 S.E.2d 213 (2008); Walker v. State, 290 Ga. 696, 723 S.E.2d 894 (2012); Ellington v. State, 292 Ga. 109, 735 S.E.2d 736 (2012); State v. Cash, 302 Ga. 587, 807 S.E.2d 405 (2017).

Cases Citing Georgia Code 17-10-35.1 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 20

Sinkfield v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-05-17

Snippet: available only in death penalty cases. See OCGA § 17- 10-35.1 (“In cases in which the death penalty is sought

Putnal v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-05-07

Citation: 814 S.E.2d 307

Snippet: (b) (applications for interlocutory appeal); 17-10-35.1 (interim appellate review in death penalty cases);

State v. Cash

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2017-10-30

Citation: 302 Ga. 587, 807 S.E.2d 405

Snippet: or an appeal is taken pursuant to Code Section 17-10-35.1, the state shall have the right to cross appeal

Ricks v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2017-05-15

Citation: 301 Ga. 171, 800 S.E.2d 307, 2017 WL 2061675, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 383

Snippet: to this Court for interim review. See OCGA §§ 17-10-35.1, 17-10-35.2; UAP II (F), (H). The application

Hulett v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-10-20

Citation: 296 Ga. 49, 766 S.E.2d 1, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 817

Snippet: for interim review by this Court. See OCGA § 17-10-35.1. 7 The testimony also showed that

Edenfield v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2013-06-17

Citation: 293 Ga. 370, 744 S.E.2d 738, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 1856, 2013 WL 2928171, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 549

Snippet: in an application for interim review. OCGA § 17-10-35.1 (h). Jury Issues 5. We next consider whether

Ellington v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-11-19

Citation: 292 Ga. 109, 735 S.E.2d 736, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 3623, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 965

Snippet: (a) (4), or seek interim review, see OCGA §§ 17-10-35.1, 17-10-35.2, nor has the State challenged them

Walker v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-03-19

Citation: 723 S.E.2d 894, 290 Ga. 696, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 977, 2012 WL 932016, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 288

Snippet: proceedings in the Supreme Court under Code Section 17-10-35.1.” OCGA § 17-7-171 (c). See Franks v. State, 266

Stripling v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-06-13

Citation: 711 S.E.2d 665, 289 Ga. 370, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 2684, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 479

Snippet: 107 (3) (657 SE2d 213) (2008). See also OCGA § 17-10-35.1 (h) (“[T]he failure of the Supreme Court to *377grant

Fair v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-11-22

Citation: 702 S.E.2d 420, 288 Ga. 244, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 3811, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 893

Snippet: five felony murder counts. Pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-35.1, we granted their second applications for interim

Humphreys v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-03-15

Citation: 694 S.E.2d 316, 287 Ga. 63, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 732, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 227

Snippet: petition for interim review in this case, see OCGA § 17-10-35.1; U.A.E II (F)-(H), as the basis for denying this

Fair v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-07-14

Citation: 664 S.E.2d 227, 284 Ga. 165, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 2391, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 624

Snippet: City of Macon in Bibb County. Pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-35.1, we granted their applications for interim review

Reaves v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-07-11

Citation: 664 S.E.2d 207, 284 Ga. 236, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 2399, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 620

Snippet: 283 Ga. 102 (3) (657 SE2d 213) (2008); OCGA § 17-10-35.1 (h) (“[T]he failure of the Supreme Court to grant

Harper v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-02-11

Citation: 657 S.E.2d 213, 283 Ga. 102, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 435, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 150

Snippet: our order granting interim review. See OCGA § 17-10-35.1 (h) (“[T]he failure of the Supreme Court to grant

Green v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2005-06-16

Citation: 614 S.E.2d 751, 279 Ga. 455, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 1868, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 440

Snippet: interim review of the case pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-35.1 of the Unified Appeal Procedure and had not modified

State v. Martin

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-09-27

Citation: 603 S.E.2d 249, 278 Ga. 418, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 3129, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 802

Snippet: and by the Unified Appeal Procedure. OCGA §§ 17-10-35.1; 17-10-35.2; 5-6-34 (c); U.A.P. II (F). It permits

Ramirez v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2003-01-13

Citation: 575 S.E.2d 462, 276 Ga. 158, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 149, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 17

Snippet: traverse jury lists." U.A.P. II(C)(6). See OCGA § 17-10-35.1(d) (authorizing interim review of issues not

Zellmer v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2000-09-11

Citation: 534 S.E.2d 802, 272 Ga. 735, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 3590, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 605

Snippet: appeal procedure for capital felonies, OCGA § 17-10-35.1, we granted their applications for interim appeal

State v. Lucious

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1999-06-14

Citation: 518 S.E.2d 677, 271 Ga. 361, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 2237, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 587

Snippet: scientific work product.1 Pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-35.1, the Unified Appeal Procedure in capital felonies

Pickren v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1998-05-18

Citation: 500 S.E.2d 566, 269 Ga. 453

Snippet: application for interim appeal pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-35.1, in order to address the trial court’s approval