Forbus v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Forbus v. State

290 S.E.2d 559, 162 Ga. App. 307, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2150

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 23, 1982

Docket63904; 63905

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 290 S.E.2d 559 (Forbus 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

Forbus v. State, 290 S.E.2d 559, 162 Ga. App. 307, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2150 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Sognier, Judge.

Violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Appellants’ attorney filed a copy of a letter to the Cobb County district attorney in the Superior Court of Cobb County. Included in the letter was a statement asking the district attorney to “please accept this letter as a formal demand for a trial by jury.” At trial appellants made a motion for discharge on the ground that after making a demand for trial, they had not been brought to trial within the time required by Code § 27-1901. The trial court denied the motion; in their sole enumeration of error, appellants contend such a denial was error. Pursuant to this court’s decision in State v. Adamczyk, 162 Ga. App. 288 (290 SE2d 149) April (1982), we affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

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

Sognier, Judge.

Violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Appellants’ attorney filed a copy of a letter to the Cobb County district attorney in the Superior Court of Cobb County. Included in the letter was a statement asking the district attorney to “please accept this letter as a formal demand for a trial by jury.” At trial appellants made a motion for discharge on the ground that after making a demand for trial, they had not been brought to trial within the time required by Code § 27-1901. The trial court denied the motion; in their sole enumeration of error, appellants contend such a denial was error. Pursuant to this court’s decision in State v. Adamczyk, 162 Ga. App. 288 (290 SE2d 149) April (1982), we affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 S.E.2d 559, 162 Ga. App. 307, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forbus-v-state-gactapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack