Lively v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lively v. State

241 S.E.2d 622, 144 Ga. App. 511, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1658

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 10, 1978

Docket54702

StatusPublished

This text of 241 S.E.2d 622 (Lively 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

Lively v. State, 241 S.E.2d 622, 144 Ga. App. 511, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1658 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction for sale of marijuana. Held:

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

2. From examination of the record, the defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. "While another lawyer or lawyers, had they represented the defendant at trial, might have conducted his defense in a different manner, and might have exercised different judgments with respect to the matters referred to in his appeal, the fact that his attorney chose to try the defendant’s case in the manner in which it was tried and made certain decisions as to the conduct of his defense, with which he and his presently employed attorney now disagree, does not require a finding that the defendant’s representation was so inadequate as to amount to a denial to him of the effective assistance of counsel.” Bright v. State, 137 Ga. App. 404, 405 (224 SE2d 71). Accord, Harrell v. State, 139 Ga. App. 556, 557 (2) (228 SE2d 723).

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman and Banke, JJ., concur.

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

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction for sale of marijuana. Held:

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

2. From examination of the record, the defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. "While another lawyer or lawyers, had they represented the defendant at trial, might have conducted his defense in a different manner, and might have exercised different judgments with respect to the matters referred to in his appeal, the fact that his attorney chose to try the defendant’s case in the manner in which it was tried and made certain decisions as to the conduct of his defense, with which he and his presently employed attorney now disagree, does not require a finding that the defendant’s representation was so inadequate as to amount to a denial to him of the effective assistance of counsel.” Bright v. State, 137 Ga. App. 404, 405 (224 SE2d 71). Accord, Harrell v. State, 139 Ga. App. 556, 557 (2) (228 SE2d 723).

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman and Banke, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 S.E.2d 622, 144 Ga. App. 511, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lively-v-state-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack