Flick v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Flick v. State

285 S.E.2d 58, 159 Ga. App. 678, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2765

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 23, 1981

Docket62012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 285 S.E.2d 58 (Flick 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

Flick v. State, 285 S.E.2d 58, 159 Ga. App. 678, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2765 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Sognier, Judge.

Flick appeals his revocation of probation on the grounds (1) that the trial court’s Order of Revocation does not meet the requirements of Gagnon v. Scarpelli (411 U. S. 778); (2) that he was denied due process of law by the trial court’s failure to advise him of his right to request appointed counsel; and (3) because the condition of probation he violated (banishment from the South Georgia Judicial Circuit) is illegal and void due to its unreasonableness. Each enumeration of error has been decided adversely to appellant’s *679 contentions. Goswick v. State, 150 Ga. App. 279, 283 (3) (257 SE2d 303) (1979); Mercer v. Hopper, 233 Ga. 620 (212 SE2d 799) (1975); Foskey v. Sapp, 237 Ga. 788, 789 (229 SE2d 635) (1976); State v. Collett, 232 Ga. 668, 670-671 (208 SE2d 472) (1974).

Decided September 23, 1981. Richard A. Epps, for appellant. Ben L. Bateman, District Attorney, Lelánd K. Hawks, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

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

Sognier, Judge.

Flick appeals his revocation of probation on the grounds (1) that the trial court’s Order of Revocation does not meet the requirements of Gagnon v. Scarpelli (411 U. S. 778); (2) that he was denied due process of law by the trial court’s failure to advise him of his right to request appointed counsel; and (3) because the condition of probation he violated (banishment from the South Georgia Judicial Circuit) is illegal and void due to its unreasonableness. Each enumeration of error has been decided adversely to appellant’s *679 contentions. Goswick v. State, 150 Ga. App. 279, 283 (3) (257 SE2d 303) (1979); Mercer v. Hopper, 233 Ga. 620 (212 SE2d 799) (1975); Foskey v. Sapp, 237 Ga. 788, 789 (229 SE2d 635) (1976); State v. Collett, 232 Ga. 668, 670-671 (208 SE2d 472) (1974).

Decided September 23, 1981. Richard A. Epps, for appellant. Ben L. Bateman, District Attorney, Lelánd K. Hawks, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 S.E.2d 58, 159 Ga. App. 678, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flick-v-state-gactapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack