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 O.C.G.A. § 17-10-35.1

Total Results: 20  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Hulett v. State, 296 Ga. 49 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 124 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 20, 2014 | 766 S.E.2d 1

...court until the motion for new trial. Nor did Hulett include the trial court’s denial of his request to dismiss Hill and replace him with new co-counsel among the issues that he requested the trial court to certify for interim review by this Court. See OCGA § 17-10-35.1. 18 (“The amount of time and effort expended by an attorney on behalf of a criminal defendant are weighty considerations in determining whether that attorney should be appointed to represent the defendant.”); Amadeo v....
Copy

Humphreys v. State, 694 S.E.2d 316 (Ga. 2010).

Cited 98 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 15, 2010 | 287 Ga. 63, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 732

...The appeal was docketed in this Court on May 7, 2009, and was orally argued on September 21, 2009. [2] In its order denying Humphreys's motion for new trial, the trial court cited this Court's denial of the petition for interim review in this case, see OCGA § 17-10-35.1; U.A.P....
...We remind trial courts and parties in death penalty cases that the failure of this Court to grant interim review of any question that could be raised under the interim review procedure does not constitute an adjudication of that question. See OCGA § 17-10-35.1(h); U.A.P....
Copy

Fair v. State, 664 S.E.2d 227 (Ga. 2008).

Cited 82 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 14, 2008 | 284 Ga. 165, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 2391

...The State contends that in the early morning hours of March 23, 2006, both defendants opened fire on Deputy Whitehead as he and other members of the Task Force and the Bibb County Drug Unit were executing a "no-knock" warrant at 3135 Atherton Street within the City of Macon in Bibb County. Pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-35.1, we granted their applications for interim review to consider the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motions for a pre-trial determination of whether they are entitled to immunity from prosecu...
Copy

Ellington v. State, 292 Ga. 109 (Ga. 2012).

Cited 61 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 19, 2012 | 735 S.E.2d 736, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 3623

...violation of Miranda may be admitted solely for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s own testimony at trial). The State did not appeal any ofthese suppression rulings before trial, see OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (4), or seek interim review, see OCGA §§ 17-10-35.1, 17-10-35.2, nor has the State challenged them in this appeal as a basis for contesting the trial court’s other rulings....
...e trial court has any doubt about its rulings. See Wagner v. State, 282 Ga. *138149, 151 (646 SE2d 676) (2007) (addressing a voir dire issue on interim review); Zellmer, 272 Ga. 735 (addressing the proper scope of voir dire on interim review); OCGA§§ 17-10-35.1, 17-10-35.2....
Copy

Edenfield v. State, 293 Ga. 370 (Ga. 2013).

Cited 43 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 17, 2013 | 744 S.E.2d 738, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 1856

...See OCGA § 17-10-35.2 (“An order obviating interim appellate review shall not be appealable.”). And in any event, Edenfield can show no harm from the denial of leave to seek interim review because he is free in this appeal to raise any issues that he might properly have raised in an application for interim review. OCGA § 17-10-35.1 (h). Jury Issues 5....
Copy

Fair v. State, 702 S.E.2d 420 (Ga. 2010).

Cited 40 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 22, 2010 | 288 Ga. 244, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 3811

...2006. After this Court decided certain issues in their cases on interim review, see id., Fair and Jolly were jointly re-indicted on a thirty-four-count indictment that includes one malice murder count and five felony murder counts. Pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-35.1, we granted their second applications for interim review to consider whether the trial court erred in denying their motions to declare unconstitutional the statutory aggravating circumstance described in OCGA § 17-10-30(b)(8) and in ru...
Copy

State v. Lucious, 518 S.E.2d 677 (Ga. 1999).

Cited 36 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 14, 1999 | 271 Ga. 361, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 2237

...Lucious filed an omnibus motion seeking an order of the trial court declaring the Act unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion but granted Lucious the unilateral right to discover specific material, including the State's trial witness list, scientific reports, and scientific work product. [1] Pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-35.1, the Unified Appeal Procedure in capital felonies, the State filed an application to appeal asserting that Lucious was not entitled to the pretrial discovery information granted by the trial court because of his election not to participate in the Act....
Copy

Green v. State, 614 S.E.2d 751 (Ga. 2005).

Cited 23 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 16, 2005 | 279 Ga. 455, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 1868

...on October 26. Oral argument was heard on February 14, 2005. [2] The trial court ruled appellant's contentions about pre-trial identification were without merit because this Court had conducted a pre-trial interim review of the case pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-35.1 of the Unified Appeal Procedure and had not modified the trial court's rulings on the issue....
...de 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." OCGA § 17-10-35.1(h)....
Copy

State v. Martin, 603 S.E.2d 249 (Ga. 2004).

Cited 23 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 27, 2004 | 278 Ga. 418, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 3129

...he State's motion to recuse the trial judge at issue in this case, is permissible under the interim review procedure applicable to death penalty cases. The interim review procedure is set forth by statutes and by the Unified Appeal Procedure. OCGA §§ 17-10-35.1 to 17-10-35.2; OCGA § 5-6-34(c); U.A.P....
...at pre-authorization, to have an application for appeal considered by this Court. OCGA § 17-10-35.2; U.A.P. II(F)(1) and (2). However, it also provides that the parties may seek appeal only of matters that constitute arguably-reversible error. OCGA § 17-10-35.1(a); U.A.P....
Copy

Harper v. State, 657 S.E.2d 213 (Ga. 2008).

Cited 22 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 11, 2008 | 283 Ga. 102, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 435

...e warrant requirement in Georgia). *218 3. Harper contends that a search of his laptop computer at work was unlawful. We exercise our discretion to decline to address this issue, which was not set forth in our order granting interim review. See OCGA § 17-10-35.1(h) ("[T]he failure of the Supreme Court to grant review ....
Copy

Ramirez v. State, 575 S.E.2d 462 (Ga. 2003).

Cited 22 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 13, 2003 | 276 Ga. 158, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 149

...The [trial] court shall compare the percentages of each cognizable group in the county, according to the most recent official decennial census figures, with the percentages represented on the grand and traverse jury lists." U.A.P. II(C)(6). See OCGA § 17-10-35.1(d) (authorizing interim review of issues not raised on application for interim review); U.A.P....
Copy

Ricks v. State, 301 Ga. 171 (Ga. 2017).

Cited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 15, 2017 | 800 S.E.2d 307

...ion on December 30, 2015. The trial court had denied Ricks’s initial request for interim review on September 30,2014. On December 31, 2015, however, the court filed an order authorizing his application to this Court for interim review. See OCGA §§ 17-10-35.1, 17-10-35.2; UAP II (F), (H)....
...In this posture, the State’s contention that any *194errors in the county’s compliance with the Jury Composition Rule are harmless misses the point of interim review, which is to avoid even arguably reversible errors in death penalty trials. See OCGA § 17-10-35.1 (a); UAP Rules I (A) (2), II (G)....
Copy

Stripling v. State, 711 S.E.2d 665 (Ga. 2011).

Cited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 13, 2011 | 289 Ga. 370, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 2684

...hout a trial over the State's objection. 4. We exercise our discretion not to consider the issues that Stripling has raised in addition to the three we ordered addressed. See Harper v. State, 283 Ga. 102, 107(3), 657 S.E.2d 213 (2008). See also OCGA § 17-10-35.1(h) ("[T]he failure of the Supreme Court to grant review ....
Copy

State v. Cash, 302 Ga. 587 (Ga. 2017).

Cited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 30, 2017 | 807 S.E.2d 405

...Such cross appeal shall be subject to the same rules of practice and procedure as provided for in civil cases under Code Section 5-6-38. (c) In any instance in which the defendant in a criminal case applies for and is granted an interlocutory appeal as provided in Code Section 5-6-34 or an appeal is taken pursuant to Code Section 17-10-35.1, the state shall have the right to cross appeal on any matter ruled on prior to the impaneling of a jury or the defendant being put in jeopardy....
Copy

Walker v. State, 723 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. 2012).

Cited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 19, 2012 | 290 Ga. 696, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 977

...The State's filing of a notice of intent to seek the death penalty typically resets the statutory speedy trial clock, which will not start over "until the convening of the first term following the completion of pretrial review proceedings in the Supreme Court under Code Section 17-10-35.1." OCGA § 17-7-171(c)....
Copy

Zellmer v. State, 534 S.E.2d 802 (Ga. 2000).

Cited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 11, 2000 | 272 Ga. 735, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 3590

...This is an interim appellate review of a case in which the State seeks the death penalty. Michael Zellmer and Robert Spickler allegedly killed Bruce Belville by striking him on the head during a robbery. Pursuant to the unified appeal procedure for capital felonies, OCGA § 17-10-35.1, we granted their applications for interim appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in ruling that appellants did not have the right to voir dire prospective jurors regarding their willingness to consider both of the non-death sentencing options, life without parole and life imprisonment....
Copy

Reaves v. State, 664 S.E.2d 207 (Ga. 2008).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 11, 2008 | 284 Ga. 236, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 2399

...We exercise our discretion to decline to address the remaining issues Reaves has raised in this interim review that were not included in this Court's order granting her application for interim review. See Harper v. State, 283 Ga. 102(3), 657 S.E.2d 213 (2008); OCGA § 17-10-35.1(h) ("[T]he failure of the Supreme Court to grant review......
Copy

Sinkfield v. State, 858 S.E.2d 703 (Ga. 2021).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 17, 2021 | 311 Ga. 524

Copy

Putnal v. State, 303 Ga. 569 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 7, 2018

...ides that ex parte proceedings are not authorized would be for the trial court to inform the defense of its decision by issuing and serving on the defense an ex parte order providing factual findings and (b) (applications for interlocutory appeal); 17-10-35.1 (interim appellate review in death penalty cases); 17-10-35 (direct appeal in death penalty cases). See also Unified Appeal Procedure (II) (F) (2) (i), (6), (7) (providing that ex parte proceedings must not be disclosed to the State or...
Copy

Putnal v. State, 814 S.E.2d 307 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 7, 2018

...igned orders, and the trial court's reasons for not proceeding ex parte and under seal were placed in the record under seal for the purpose of creating a record for appellate review.8 See OCGA §§ 5-6-34 (b) (applications for interlocutory appeal); 17-10-35.1 (interim appellate review in death penalty cases); 17-10-35 (direct appeal in death penalty cases)....