Cochran v. Baxter

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cochran v. Baxter

236 S.E.2d 528, 142 Ga. App. 546, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1691

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 13, 1977

Docket53880

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 236 S.E.2d 528 (Cochran v. Baxter) 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

Cochran v. Baxter, 236 S.E.2d 528, 142 Ga. App. 546, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1691 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Marshall, Judge.

The appellant, Cochran, brings a pro se appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the appellee, Baxter. Baxter, an attorney, brought suit against Cochran for the value of legal services rendered in behalf of Cochran. These services unsuccessfully sought to have an indictment brought against a person, who apparently was an ex-employee of Cochran, for defalcation of funds. The disputes whether a contract was entered into between Baxter and Cochran, as to the amount of the fee, and whether the services were rendered pursuant to the contract, were matters tried before the jury. In his notice of appeal, Cochran directed that the transcript of the evidence would not be filed. In his enumerations of error, Cochran makes three one-sentence-long allegations without citation of authority or amplifying argument. These enumerations seem to say that Cochran, having failed in his first defense of the case while acting pro se, would like "a second bite at the apple,” this time with the assistance of an attorney. Held:

For either one of two reasons, we affirm this case. The burden is always on the appellant in assertions of error to show it affirmatively by the record. Cochran filed a motion for new trial upon the general grounds only. In his enumerations, he does not indicate dissatisfaction with the denial of his motion for a new trial. Moreover, in his notice of appeal he states that the transcript of evidence will not be filed for inclusion in the record and no transcript has been forwarded to this court. Under such circumstances, we cannot examine the validity of the asserted errors in the absence of the transcript. Thus, the *547 judgment below must be affirmed. Lee v. Tollerson, 139 Ga. App. 446, 447 (228 SE2d 595) (1976); Martin v. Britts Home Furnishings, 137 Ga. App. 360 (223 SE2d 757) (1976); Pastis v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 134 Ga. App. 9 (213 SE2d 161) (1975). Moreover, the appellant’s brief contains a mere recital of the existence of three errors without argument or citation of authority. These enumerations are deemed to have been abandoned. Ezzard v. State, 229 Ga. 465 (192 SE2d 374) (1972); Andrew v. State, 229 Ga. 388, 389 (191 SE2d 841) (1972); Power v. Tallant, 137 Ga. App. 575 (224 SE2d 534) (1976); O’Kelley v. Hayes, 132 Ga. App. 134 (207 SE2d 641) (1974); Rodriguez v. Newby, 131 Ga. App. 651, 655 (5) (206 SE2d 585) (1974). There being no matter for consideration by this court, the judgment is affirmed.

Argued May 4, 1977 Decided June 13, 1977. James H. Cochran, pro se. Weston D. Baxter, pro se.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Webb, J., concur.

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

Marshall, Judge.

The appellant, Cochran, brings a pro se appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the appellee, Baxter. Baxter, an attorney, brought suit against Cochran for the value of legal services rendered in behalf of Cochran. These services unsuccessfully sought to have an indictment brought against a person, who apparently was an ex-employee of Cochran, for defalcation of funds. The disputes whether a contract was entered into between Baxter and Cochran, as to the amount of the fee, and whether the services were rendered pursuant to the contract, were matters tried before the jury. In his notice of appeal, Cochran directed that the transcript of the evidence would not be filed. In his enumerations of error, Cochran makes three one-sentence-long allegations without citation of authority or amplifying argument. These enumerations seem to say that Cochran, having failed in his first defense of the case while acting pro se, would like "a second bite at the apple,” this time with the assistance of an attorney. Held:

For either one of two reasons, we affirm this case. The burden is always on the appellant in assertions of error to show it affirmatively by the record. Cochran filed a motion for new trial upon the general grounds only. In his enumerations, he does not indicate dissatisfaction with the denial of his motion for a new trial. Moreover, in his notice of appeal he states that the transcript of evidence will not be filed for inclusion in the record and no transcript has been forwarded to this court. Under such circumstances, we cannot examine the validity of the asserted errors in the absence of the transcript. Thus, the *547 judgment below must be affirmed. Lee v. Tollerson, 139 Ga. App. 446, 447 (228 SE2d 595) (1976); Martin v. Britts Home Furnishings, 137 Ga. App. 360 (223 SE2d 757) (1976); Pastis v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 134 Ga. App. 9 (213 SE2d 161) (1975). Moreover, the appellant’s brief contains a mere recital of the existence of three errors without argument or citation of authority. These enumerations are deemed to have been abandoned. Ezzard v. State, 229 Ga. 465 (192 SE2d 374) (1972); Andrew v. State, 229 Ga. 388, 389 (191 SE2d 841) (1972); Power v. Tallant, 137 Ga. App. 575 (224 SE2d 534) (1976); O’Kelley v. Hayes, 132 Ga. App. 134 (207 SE2d 641) (1974); Rodriguez v. Newby, 131 Ga. App. 651, 655 (5) (206 SE2d 585) (1974). There being no matter for consideration by this court, the judgment is affirmed.

Argued May 4, 1977 Decided June 13, 1977. James H. Cochran, pro se. Weston D. Baxter, pro se.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Webb, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.E.2d 528, 142 Ga. App. 546, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-baxter-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack