Dortch v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dortch v. State

420 S.E.2d 778, 204 Ga. App. 822, 92 Fulton County D. Rep. 1200, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 1015

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 25, 1992

DocketA92A0638

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 420 S.E.2d 778 (Dortch 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

Dortch v. State, 420 S.E.2d 778, 204 Ga. App. 822, 92 Fulton County D. Rep. 1200, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 1015 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of driving on the left side of a roadway in violation of OCGA § 40-6-45 and of driving under the influence in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1). He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdicts.

1. Appellant moved for a continuance based upon the absence of a defense witness. However, appellant was unable to show that the absent witness had been served with a subpoena. Accordingly, there was no error in denying the motion for a continuance. Brown v. State, *823 169 Ga. App. 520, 521 (1) (313 SE2d 777) (1984).

Decided June 25, 1992 Reconsideration denied July 7, 1992 Richard T. Bridges, Russell T. Bridges, for appellant. W. Fletcher Sams, District Attorney, Randall K. Coggin, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trior of fact to find proof of appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

3. An enumeration of error predicated upon the giving of an Allen charge is without merit. The charge was not rendered coercive by the trial court’s inclusion therein of the statement that the case would have “to be determined by some jury at some time. . . .” Concepcion v. State, 200 Ga. App. 358 (1) (408 SE2d 130) (1991). The charge included the cautionary instruction that the trial court was “certainly not asking, nor suggesting, that any person on [the] jury give up honestly held convictions.” See Willingham v. State, 134 Ga. App. 603, 607 (5a) (215 SE2d 521) (1975).

4. The trial court’s failure to give appellant’s requests to charge is enumerated as error. However, written requests to charge were not timely submitted to the trial court, who was not made aware of appellant’s requests until after the charge had been given. “All requests to charge shall be . . . submitted to the court ... at the commencement of trial. . . .” Uniform Superior Court Rule 10.3. Accordingly, appellant’s “requests were not timely submitted and it was not error for the court to refuse to give them.” Curtis v. State, 224 Ga. 870, 874 (9) (165 SE2d 150) (1968).

5. Appellant’s remaining enumerations of error have been considered and found to be either moot or meritless.

Judgments affirmed.

Pope and Johnson, JJ., concur.

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

Carley, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of driving on the left side of a roadway in violation of OCGA § 40-6-45 and of driving under the influence in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1). He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdicts.

1. Appellant moved for a continuance based upon the absence of a defense witness. However, appellant was unable to show that the absent witness had been served with a subpoena. Accordingly, there was no error in denying the motion for a continuance. Brown v. State, *823 169 Ga. App. 520, 521 (1) (313 SE2d 777) (1984).

Decided June 25, 1992 Reconsideration denied July 7, 1992 Richard T. Bridges, Russell T. Bridges, for appellant. W. Fletcher Sams, District Attorney, Randall K. Coggin, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trior of fact to find proof of appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

3. An enumeration of error predicated upon the giving of an Allen charge is without merit. The charge was not rendered coercive by the trial court’s inclusion therein of the statement that the case would have “to be determined by some jury at some time. . . .” Concepcion v. State, 200 Ga. App. 358 (1) (408 SE2d 130) (1991). The charge included the cautionary instruction that the trial court was “certainly not asking, nor suggesting, that any person on [the] jury give up honestly held convictions.” See Willingham v. State, 134 Ga. App. 603, 607 (5a) (215 SE2d 521) (1975).

4. The trial court’s failure to give appellant’s requests to charge is enumerated as error. However, written requests to charge were not timely submitted to the trial court, who was not made aware of appellant’s requests until after the charge had been given. “All requests to charge shall be . . . submitted to the court ... at the commencement of trial. . . .” Uniform Superior Court Rule 10.3. Accordingly, appellant’s “requests were not timely submitted and it was not error for the court to refuse to give them.” Curtis v. State, 224 Ga. 870, 874 (9) (165 SE2d 150) (1968).

5. Appellant’s remaining enumerations of error have been considered and found to be either moot or meritless.

Judgments affirmed.

Pope and Johnson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

420 S.E.2d 778, 204 Ga. App. 822, 92 Fulton County D. Rep. 1200, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 1015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dortch-v-state-gactapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack