Gentry v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gentry v. State

587 S.E.2d 186, 263 Ga. App. 21, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 2659, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 1075

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 2, 2003

DocketA03A0883

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 587 S.E.2d 186 (Gentry 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

Gentry v. State, 587 S.E.2d 186, 263 Ga. App. 21, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 2659, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 1075 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Johnson, Presiding Judge.

Claude Gentry was tried before a jury and convicted of aggravated assault and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. He moved for a new trial, alleging, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective, although his written motion did not specify how his counsel’s performance was deficient. An evidentiary hearing was held on Gentry’s motion, after which the trial court entered an order denying the motion without explanation.

Gentry now appeals from that order, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, no transcript of the hearing on the motion for new trial was made. Absent a transcript, we must presume that Gentry failed to meet his burden of proving the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel and that the trial court correctly denied the motion for new trial on this ground.¹ The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Eldridge and Mikell, JJ, concur. Herbert E. Franklin, Jr., District Attorney, Michael J. Moeller, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

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

Johnson, Presiding Judge.

Claude Gentry was tried before a jury and convicted of aggravated assault and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. He moved for a new trial, alleging, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective, although his written motion did not specify how his counsel’s performance was deficient. An evidentiary hearing was held on Gentry’s motion, after which the trial court entered an order denying the motion without explanation.

Gentry now appeals from that order, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, no transcript of the hearing on the motion for new trial was made. Absent a transcript, we must presume that Gentry failed to meet his burden of proving the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel and that the trial court correctly denied the motion for new trial on this ground.¹ The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Eldridge and Mikell, JJ, concur. Herbert E. Franklin, Jr., District Attorney, Michael J. Moeller, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 S.E.2d 186, 263 Ga. App. 21, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 2659, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 1075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gentry-v-state-gactapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack