Bissel v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bissel v. State

189 S.E.2d 701, 126 Ga. App. 61, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1047

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 12, 1972

Docket47075

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 189 S.E.2d 701 (Bissel v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bissel v. State, 189 S.E.2d 701, 126 Ga. App. 61, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1047 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

The defendant was convicted of burglary. He appeals from the order overruling his motion for new trial.

*62 Argued April 3, 1972— Decided April 12, 1972. William L. Gower, John McGuigan, for appellant. Ben F. Smith, District Attorney, for appellee.

1. The defendant has limited his argument on the general grounds to the theory that under the facts of this case he cannot be convicted of burglary. The evidence amply shows that the defendant unlawfully entered a gasoline service station with intent to commit theft. It is urged that a building of this nature is not the subject of burglary under the provisions of Code Ann. §26-1601 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1287). This argument has no merit and is controlled adversely to appellant by Mixon v. State, 226 Ga. 869 (178 SE2d 189).

2. After the commencement of the trial and the hearing of testimony of witnesses, the defendant objected to the receipt of certain evidence on the ground that it was obtained as the result of an unlawful arrest of defendant and a search of his automobile. The trial judge overruled the objection. Defendant made no motion to suppress the evidence in writing as required by Code Ann. §27-313. Failure to. comply with this statutory provision amounts to a waiver of the constitutional guarantee in respect to the challenged search and seizure. Lane v. State, 118 Ga. App. 688 (165 SE2d 474).

Judgment affirmed.

Evans and Stolz, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bell, Chief Judge.

The defendant was convicted of burglary. He appeals from the order overruling his motion for new trial.

*62 Argued April 3, 1972— Decided April 12, 1972. William L. Gower, John McGuigan, for appellant. Ben F. Smith, District Attorney, for appellee.

1. The defendant has limited his argument on the general grounds to the theory that under the facts of this case he cannot be convicted of burglary. The evidence amply shows that the defendant unlawfully entered a gasoline service station with intent to commit theft. It is urged that a building of this nature is not the subject of burglary under the provisions of Code Ann. §26-1601 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1287). This argument has no merit and is controlled adversely to appellant by Mixon v. State, 226 Ga. 869 (178 SE2d 189).

2. After the commencement of the trial and the hearing of testimony of witnesses, the defendant objected to the receipt of certain evidence on the ground that it was obtained as the result of an unlawful arrest of defendant and a search of his automobile. The trial judge overruled the objection. Defendant made no motion to suppress the evidence in writing as required by Code Ann. §27-313. Failure to. comply with this statutory provision amounts to a waiver of the constitutional guarantee in respect to the challenged search and seizure. Lane v. State, 118 Ga. App. 688 (165 SE2d 474).

Judgment affirmed.

Evans and Stolz, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.E.2d 701, 126 Ga. App. 61, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bissel-v-state-gactapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack