Holtzendorf v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holtzendorf v. State

52 S.E.2d 624, 78 Ga. App. 801, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 983

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 18, 1949

Docket32377.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 52 S.E.2d 624 (Holtzendorf 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

Holtzendorf v. State, 52 S.E.2d 624, 78 Ga. App. 801, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 983 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

1. There is no authority of law for excepting in the same petition for writ of certiorari to the rendition of two separate verdicts and two separate judgments based thereon, notwithstanding the fact that said verdicts and judgments are based on two separate accusations charging separate misdemeanors which were by agreement tried together before the same jury. In order to set aside either of such verdicts and judgments, the complaining party must proceed separately as to each. See Fillingame v. State, 27 Ga. App. 764 (109 S.E. 916); Bridges v. State, 27 Ga. App. 767 (110 S.E. 412); Dickey v. State, 101 Ga. 572 (28 S.E. 980); Hornsby v. State, 44 Ga. App. 788 (163 S.E. 516).

2. By two separate accusations the defendant was accused of two separate misdemeanors. By agreement the cases were tried together. The jury returned two separate verdicts of guilty and the court imposed two *Page 802 separate sentences. The defendant filed one petition for writ of certiorari in the superior court, complaining of these two verdicts and judgments. The judge overruled the certiorari and this judgment is assigned as error.

It follows that this court has no jurisdiction of the writ of error sued out in the instant case, and the same is therefore

Dismissed. MacIntyre, P. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

DECIDED MARCH 18, 1949.

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

1. There is no authority of law for excepting in the same petition for writ of certiorari to the rendition of two separate verdicts and two separate judgments based thereon, notwithstanding the fact that said verdicts and judgments are based on two separate accusations charging separate misdemeanors which were by agreement tried together before the same jury. In order to set aside either of such verdicts and judgments, the complaining party must proceed separately as to each. See Fillingame v. State, 27 Ga. App. 764 (109 S.E. 916); Bridges v. State, 27 Ga. App. 767 (110 S.E. 412); Dickey v. State, 101 Ga. 572 (28 S.E. 980); Hornsby v. State, 44 Ga. App. 788 (163 S.E. 516).

2. By two separate accusations the defendant was accused of two separate misdemeanors. By agreement the cases were tried together. The jury returned two separate verdicts of guilty and the court imposed two *Page 802 separate sentences. The defendant filed one petition for writ of certiorari in the superior court, complaining of these two verdicts and judgments. The judge overruled the certiorari and this judgment is assigned as error.

It follows that this court has no jurisdiction of the writ of error sued out in the instant case, and the same is therefore

Dismissed. MacIntyre, P. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

DECIDED MARCH 18, 1949.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 S.E.2d 624, 78 Ga. App. 801, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holtzendorf-v-state-gactapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack