Forbes v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Forbes v. State

199 S.E.2d 548, 129 Ga. App. 231, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 957

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1973

Docket48266

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 199 S.E.2d 548 (Forbes 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

Forbes v. State, 199 S.E.2d 548, 129 Ga. App. 231, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 957 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

1. Assuming, without deciding, that the introduction into evidence on a sentence hearing of a prior conviction of the defendant of another offense, which was then pending on motion for new trial would be error, on the theory that the prior conviction was not then final; yet, where, as in the present case, it appears by stipulation in the record that such prior conviction was not overturned but a new trial as to sentence only was granted, all prior to the introduction in evidence of such conviction, no error is shown as the record does not support the enumeration of error made.

2. Where a defendant is charged in one indictment with four counts of forgery, of which he is convicted, he is not entitled to be sentenced as for one offense merely because the checks forged were stolen or in his possession at the same time. See in this connection Patterson v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 321 (1) (191 SE2d 43). While the case cited was decided under the prior law (former Code § 26-3911) rather than the present law under which he was indicted, Code § 26-1702, yet insofar as the question here raised is concerned, that is, does the forging of the separate checks constitute one or four transactions, there is no material difference.

3. There was no error in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt, P. J., and Stolz, J., concur.

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

Pannell, Judge.

1. Assuming, without deciding, that the introduction into evidence on a sentence hearing of a prior conviction of the defendant of another offense, which was then pending on motion for new trial would be error, on the theory that the prior conviction was not then final; yet, where, as in the present case, it appears by stipulation in the record that such prior conviction was not overturned but a new trial as to sentence only was granted, all prior to the introduction in evidence of such conviction, no error is shown as the record does not support the enumeration of error made.

2. Where a defendant is charged in one indictment with four counts of forgery, of which he is convicted, he is not entitled to be sentenced as for one offense merely because the checks forged were stolen or in his possession at the same time. See in this connection Patterson v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 321 (1) (191 SE2d 43). While the case cited was decided under the prior law (former Code § 26-3911) rather than the present law under which he was indicted, Code § 26-1702, yet insofar as the question here raised is concerned, that is, does the forging of the separate checks constitute one or four transactions, there is no material difference.

3. There was no error in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt, P. J., and Stolz, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 S.E.2d 548, 129 Ga. App. 231, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forbes-v-state-gactapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack