Lawrence Burton v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lawrence Burton v. State

DecidedOctober 23, 2012

DocketA13A0233

StatusPublished

This text of Lawrence Burton v. State (Lawrence Burton 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

Lawrence Burton v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________ October 23, 2012

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A13A0233. LAWRENCE BURTON v. THE STATE.

Lawrence Burton was charged with criminal attempt to commit armed robbery and other crimes. The indictment was later ordered to be placed on the dead docket. Burton was apparently re-indicted, convicted, and sentenced to 20 years’ incarceration. He filed a motion to modify his sentence, but his motion inadvertently listed the number of his original, dead-docketed case.1 The trial court entered an order denying the motion, but that order also listed the incorrect case number. Burton filed a timely notice of appeal, and the trial court clerk’s office transmitted the record from the dead-docketed case to this Court. That record, of course, contains no documents pertaining to the re-indicted case, such as the sentence that Burton wishes to challenge. In light of Burton’s error in listing the wrong case number on his motion, and the trial court’s error in issuing a denial order that likewise listed the wrong case number, we REMAND this case to the trial court. On remand, Burton’s motion should be re-docketed with the correct case number, and the trial court should enter an appropriate order on the re-docketed motion. After entry of that order, Burton will have the right to appeal again.

1 It is clear that Burton meant to challenge the sentence entered in the re- indicted case, and his motion should be interpreted accordingly. See Martin v. Williams, 263 Ga. 707, 708 (1) (438 SE2d 353) (1994) (motion’s substance controls over its nomenclature). Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 10/23/2012 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________ October 23, 2012

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A13A0233. LAWRENCE BURTON v. THE STATE.

Lawrence Burton was charged with criminal attempt to commit armed robbery and other crimes. The indictment was later ordered to be placed on the dead docket. Burton was apparently re-indicted, convicted, and sentenced to 20 years’ incarceration. He filed a motion to modify his sentence, but his motion inadvertently listed the number of his original, dead-docketed case.1 The trial court entered an order denying the motion, but that order also listed the incorrect case number. Burton filed a timely notice of appeal, and the trial court clerk’s office transmitted the record from the dead-docketed case to this Court. That record, of course, contains no documents pertaining to the re-indicted case, such as the sentence that Burton wishes to challenge. In light of Burton’s error in listing the wrong case number on his motion, and the trial court’s error in issuing a denial order that likewise listed the wrong case number, we REMAND this case to the trial court. On remand, Burton’s motion should be re-docketed with the correct case number, and the trial court should enter an appropriate order on the re-docketed motion. After entry of that order, Burton will have the right to appeal again.

1 It is clear that Burton meant to challenge the sentence entered in the re- indicted case, and his motion should be interpreted accordingly. See Martin v. Williams, 263 Ga. 707, 708 (1) (438 SE2d 353) (1994) (motion’s substance controls over its nomenclature). Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 10/23/2012 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lawrence Burton v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-burton-v-state-gactapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack