Christopher Cosper v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 30, 2013
DocketA13A0143
StatusPublished

This text of Christopher Cosper v. State (Christopher Cosper 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
Christopher Cosper v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

SECOND DIVISION BARNES, P. J., MILLER and RAY, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. (Court of Appeals Rule 4 (b) and Rule 37 (b), February 21, 2008) http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

April 30, 2013

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A13A0143. COSPER v. THE STATE. RA-005C

RAY, Judge.

On March 28, 2011, Christopher Lee Cosper entered a plea of child molestation

and was sentenced to thirty years in custody to run concurrently with the sentence he

was currently serving. In July 2012, he filed a pro se motion for leave to file an out-

of-time appeal, which the trial court denied. Proceeding pro se, Cosper appeals,

arguing issues involving the indictment, jurisdiction, venue and that he was subjected

to double-jeopardy. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court.

A trial court’s denial of a criminal defendant’s motion for an out-of-time appeal

is directly appealable when the conviction at issue has not been the subject of a

previous appeal, and we review that decision for abuse of discretion. McMullen v. State, 292 Ga. 355, 355 (1) (737 SE2d 102) (2013); Jackson v. State, 313 Ga. App.

483 (722 SE2d 80) (2011).

Out-of-time appeals are designed to address the constitutional concerns that arise when a criminal defendant is denied his first appeal of right because the counsel to which he was constitutionally entitled to assist him in that appeal was professionally deficient in not advising him to file a timely appeal and that deficiency caused prejudice.

(Citations omitted.) Stephens v. State, 291 Ga. 837, 837-838 (1) (733 SE2d 266)

(2012). In this case, Cosper “did not allege that his failure to file a timely appeal of

his conviction was due to any ineffective assistance of counsel, and that motion was

therefore correctly denied.” McMullen, supra at 355 (2).

Judgment affirmed. Barnes, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.

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

Related

Jackson v. State
722 S.E.2d 80 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Stephens v. State
733 S.E.2d 266 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2012)
McMullen v. State
737 S.E.2d 102 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Christopher Cosper v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-cosper-v-state-gactapp-2013.