Earnest v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Earnest v. State

97 S.E. 883, 23 Ga. App. 138, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 2

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 9, 1919

Docket9536

StatusPublished

This text of 97 S.E. 883 (Earnest 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

Earnest v. State, 97 S.E. 883, 23 Ga. App. 138, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 2 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

“Where one lias been convicted and sentenced in a erim-

inal case and has made a motion for a new trial, he can not, while the motion is still pending and undisposed of in the lower court, maintain a bill of exceptions assigning error upon the refusal of the court to set aside the sentence and judgment, the motion to set aside being based on an- alleged error committed at the. trial that entered into and . affected the judgment, viz., that the sentence and judgment were passed and signed while the defendant was absent from the court-room. If the motion to set asid’e should be sustained, it would not affect the .verdict or terminate the cause. Civil Code, § 6138; Duke v. Story, 113 Ga. 112 (38 S. E. 337) ; Duncan v. Duncan, 145 Ga. 424 (89 S. E. 486);. Durrence v. Waters, 140 Ga. 762 (79 S. E. 841). The ruling here made does not in any way conflict with the decision in May v. Collins, 118 Ga. 243 (44 S. E. 1002), which dealt with á motion’ in arrest of judgment, which is a separate cause from the main case and must be predicated on a defect, not amendable, which appears on the face 5f the record or pleadings. Civil Code, § 5957.” This ruling was . made on December 12, 1918, by the Supreme Court (148 Ga. 632, 97 S. E. 672), in response to a question certified by this court; and under it the writ of error is

Dismissed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

“Where one lias been convicted and sentenced in a erim-

inal case and has made a motion for a new trial, he can not, while the motion is still pending and undisposed of in the lower court, maintain a bill of exceptions assigning error upon the refusal of the court to set aside the sentence and judgment, the motion to set aside being based on an- alleged error committed at the. trial that entered into and . affected the judgment, viz., that the sentence and judgment were passed and signed while the defendant was absent from the court-room. If the motion to set asid’e should be sustained, it would not affect the .verdict or terminate the cause. Civil Code, § 6138; Duke v. Story, 113 Ga. 112 (38 S. E. 337) ; Duncan v. Duncan, 145 Ga. 424 (89 S. E. 486);. Durrence v. Waters, 140 Ga. 762 (79 S. E. 841). The ruling here made does not in any way conflict with the decision in May v. Collins, 118 Ga. 243 (44 S. E. 1002), which dealt with á motion’ in arrest of judgment, which is a separate cause from the main case and must be predicated on a defect, not amendable, which appears on the face 5f the record or pleadings. Civil Code, § 5957.” This ruling was . made on December 12, 1918, by the Supreme Court (148 Ga. 632, 97 S. E. 672), in response to a question certified by this court; and under it the writ of error is

Dismissed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E. 883, 23 Ga. App. 138, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earnest-v-state-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack