Bolden v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bolden v. State

568 S.E.2d 588, 256 Ga. App. 327, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 2178, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 912

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 3, 2002

DocketA01A0527

StatusPublished

This text of 568 S.E.2d 588 (Bolden 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

Bolden v. State, 568 S.E.2d 588, 256 Ga. App. 327, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 2178, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 912 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Mikell, Judge.

In Bolden v. State, 250 Ga. App. 825 (552 SE2d 533) (2001), wé affirmed the trial court’s order revoking Cordie Bolden’s probation, holding that the court was entitled to consider her nolo contendere plea for the limited purpose of resentencing her under the first offender provisions of OCGA § 42-8-60. On certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed our decision. Bolden v. State, 275 Ga. 180 (563 SE2d 858) (2002). The Supreme Court held that under OCGA § 17-7-95 (c), a nolo contendere plea may not be used to establish that a defendant violated the terms of her probation. Accordingly, our prior opinion is vacated, and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court.

Judgment reversed.

Blackburn, C. J., Pope, P. J, Andrews, P. J., Johnson, P. J., Eldridge and Miller, JJ, concur.

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

Mikell, Judge.

In Bolden v. State, 250 Ga. App. 825 (552 SE2d 533) (2001), wé affirmed the trial court’s order revoking Cordie Bolden’s probation, holding that the court was entitled to consider her nolo contendere plea for the limited purpose of resentencing her under the first offender provisions of OCGA § 42-8-60. On certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed our decision. Bolden v. State, 275 Ga. 180 (563 SE2d 858) (2002). The Supreme Court held that under OCGA § 17-7-95 (c), a nolo contendere plea may not be used to establish that a defendant violated the terms of her probation. Accordingly, our prior opinion is vacated, and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court.

Judgment reversed.

Blackburn, C. J., Pope, P. J, Andrews, P. J., Johnson, P. J., Eldridge and Miller, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 S.E.2d 588, 256 Ga. App. 327, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 2178, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolden-v-state-gactapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack