O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-10-35.2 (2019)

Hearing to determine appropriateness of interim appellate review of pretrial rulings

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Prior to the filing of a report by the trial judge under Code Section 17-10-35.1 certifying that pretrial proceedings are complete, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine if an interim appellate review of pretrial rulings is appropriate. The court shall hear from the state and the defense as to whether the delay to be caused by interim appellate review outweighs the need for such review. The court shall order such

review and initiate the procedure contained in Code Section 17-10-35.1 unless the court concludes and enters an order to the effect that interim appellate review would not serve the ends of justice in the case. An order obviating interim appellate review shall not be appealable.

History

Code 1981, § 17-10-35.2, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 1437, § 4.

Annotations

Cross references. - Issues for review, Ga. Sup. Ct. R. 37.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278, 393 S.E.2d 436 (1990); Ellington v. State, 292 Ga. 109, 735 S.E.2d 736 (2012).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2021 · leading case: State v. Martin, 603 S.E.2d 249 (Ga. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Martin, 603 S.E.2d 249 (Ga. 2004). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 17-10-35.2; U.A.P. II(F)(1) and (2).”
Ellington v. State, 735 S.E.2d 736 (Ga. 2012). · cites it 2× “The trial court ruled that interim review was inappropriate in this case, see OCGA § 17-10-35.2 (granting trial courts the discretion to determine that interim review is not appropriate), although several issues discussed in this opinion appear appropriate for such review.”
Edenfield v. State, 744 S.E.2d 738 (Ga. 2013). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 17-10-35.2 (“An order obviating interim appellate review shall not be appealable.”
Sinkfield v. State, 858 S.E.2d 703 (Ga. 2021). · cites it 4× “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.”
Franks v. State, 469 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 8× “The trial court subsequently conducted a hearing pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-35.2 to determine whether interim appellate review would be appropriate.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.