Earp v. Angel

357 S.E.2d 596, 257 Ga. 333, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 815
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 9, 1987
Docket44507
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 357 S.E.2d 596 (Earp v. Angel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Earp v. Angel, 357 S.E.2d 596, 257 Ga. 333, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 815 (Ga. 1987).

Opinion

Clarke, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Public Safety from a decision granting habeas corpus relief to Angel. In 1985 the Department of Public Safety declared Angel a habitual violator and revoked his driver’s license for five years. Angel did not appeal this action which followed his pleading guilty to driving under the influence and to driving while a habitual violator in 1983 and his pleading nolo contendere to a charge of driving while a habitual violator.

[334]*334Decided July 9, 1987 Reconsideration denied July 30, 1987. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Jennifer L. Hackemeyer, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. Michael Martin, for appellee.

The 1983 pleas were taken pursuant to the terms of the Probation for First Offenders Act, OCGA § 42-8-60 et seq., and Angel was discharged without adjudication of guilt of these two offenses under the act. Following the 1985 adjudication of habitual violator, Angel filed a petition for habeas corpus on the basis that the offenses under the First Offenders Act could not be the predicate offenses for an adjudication of habitual violator. The habeas court granted the relief sought, and the Commissioner appealed. We reverse but for another reason.

Appellee failed to follow the appellate procedure available under OCGA § 40-5-66 to attack his adjudication as a habitual violator. “[F]ailure to enumerate as error on appeal any alleged error or deficiency stands on like footing with a failure to make timely objection in the trial court — that is, the same shall be waived. Being waived, there then exists a procedural bar to its consideration in habeas corpus proceedings, under the same circumstances as pertain to like waivers in the trial court.” Black v. Hardin, 255 Ga. 239, 240 (336 SE2d 754) (1985).

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

BARROW v. MIKELL Et Al.
782 S.E.2d 439 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2016)
Barrow v. Mikell
771 S.E.2d 211 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2015)
Earp v. Lynch
362 S.E.2d 55 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
357 S.E.2d 596, 257 Ga. 333, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earp-v-angel-ga-1987.