Haselrig v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Haselrig v. State

485 S.E.2d 555, 225 Ga. App. 873, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 1769, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 504

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 2, 1997

DocketA97A0807

StatusPublished

This text of 485 S.E.2d 555 (Haselrig 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

Haselrig v. State, 485 S.E.2d 555, 225 Ga. App. 873, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 1769, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 504 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Blackburn, Judge.

Derricus Haselrig appeals his convictions of selling cocaine and selling cocaine within 1,000 feet of a housing project. On appeal Haselrig contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for continuance and that his trial counsel was ineffective.

1. Haselrig contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance. Haselrig’s counsel attempted to object to the all white venire panel from which he was required to select a jury. However, OCGA § 15-12-162 requires that such a motion be in writing, and the trial court denied Haselrig’s motion.

After selecting jurors, the trial court recessed for lunch. Upon return from lunch, Haselrig’s counsel again objected to the composition of the jury panel. Haselrig’s counsel requested a continuance to prepare the motion, which the trial court also denied.

“A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and this court will not interfere unless it is clearly shown that the court abused its discretion. OCGA § 17-8-22.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Kennedy v. State, 217 Ga. App. 18 (1) (456 SE2d 288) (1995). We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion, especially considering the timing of the lunch recess which would have provided counsel with the opportunity to write the required motion.

2. Haselrig argues for the first time on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective. “In order to preserve the issue of trial counsel’s effectiveness for appellate review, a claim of ineffective assistance of [874]*874counsel must be determined by means of an evidentiary hearing at the earliest practicable moment. Where the issue of ineffectiveness of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, the case must be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the claim.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 19 (2). Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for such a hearing.

Decided April 2,1997. Aldous D. McCrory, for appellant. Stephen F. Lanier, District Attorney, Leigh E. Patterson, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Case remanded with direction.

Pope, P. J., and Johnson, J., concur.

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

Blackburn, Judge.

Derricus Haselrig appeals his convictions of selling cocaine and selling cocaine within 1,000 feet of a housing project. On appeal Haselrig contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for continuance and that his trial counsel was ineffective.

1. Haselrig contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance. Haselrig’s counsel attempted to object to the all white venire panel from which he was required to select a jury. However, OCGA § 15-12-162 requires that such a motion be in writing, and the trial court denied Haselrig’s motion.

After selecting jurors, the trial court recessed for lunch. Upon return from lunch, Haselrig’s counsel again objected to the composition of the jury panel. Haselrig’s counsel requested a continuance to prepare the motion, which the trial court also denied.

“A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and this court will not interfere unless it is clearly shown that the court abused its discretion. OCGA § 17-8-22.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Kennedy v. State, 217 Ga. App. 18 (1) (456 SE2d 288) (1995). We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion, especially considering the timing of the lunch recess which would have provided counsel with the opportunity to write the required motion.

2. Haselrig argues for the first time on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective. “In order to preserve the issue of trial counsel’s effectiveness for appellate review, a claim of ineffective assistance of [874]*874counsel must be determined by means of an evidentiary hearing at the earliest practicable moment. Where the issue of ineffectiveness of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, the case must be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the claim.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 19 (2). Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for such a hearing.

Decided April 2,1997. Aldous D. McCrory, for appellant. Stephen F. Lanier, District Attorney, Leigh E. Patterson, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Case remanded with direction.

Pope, P. J., and Johnson, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 S.E.2d 555, 225 Ga. App. 873, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 1769, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haselrig-v-state-gactapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack