McCormick v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McCormick v. State

289 S.E.2d 23, 161 Ga. App. 573, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1945

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 10, 1982

Docket63726

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 289 S.E.2d 23 (McCormick 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

McCormick v. State, 289 S.E.2d 23, 161 Ga. App. 573, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1945 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Chief Judge.

On this appeal after a Birge hearing (238 Ga. 88 (230 SE2d 895)), the sole enumeration of error is that the trial court failed to make the necessary findings of fact but merely stated conclusions of law.

In determining whether to grant an appeal bond the trial judge is not required to make findings of fact. Instead, he must set forth the basis of his decision predicated on the four questions posed by Birge. Moore v. State, 151 Ga. App. 413, 414 (260 SE2d 350). In the case sub judice the trial judge denied the application for bond, reciting two of the four reasons posited by Birge, to wit: “(1) There is a likelihood that the defendant will abscond; (2) There is a likelihood that the defendant would pose a continued threat to society by continuing to commit crimes.” This was sufficient compliance with the requirements of our law. See Lane v. State, 247 Ga. 387, 389 (276 SE2d 644).

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, P. J., and Carley, J., concur. [574]*574Decided March 10, 1982. Thomas J. Hough, Jr., for appellant. William A. Foster III, District Attorney, Jeff Richards, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

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

Quillian, Chief Judge.

On this appeal after a Birge hearing (238 Ga. 88 (230 SE2d 895)), the sole enumeration of error is that the trial court failed to make the necessary findings of fact but merely stated conclusions of law.

In determining whether to grant an appeal bond the trial judge is not required to make findings of fact. Instead, he must set forth the basis of his decision predicated on the four questions posed by Birge. Moore v. State, 151 Ga. App. 413, 414 (260 SE2d 350). In the case sub judice the trial judge denied the application for bond, reciting two of the four reasons posited by Birge, to wit: “(1) There is a likelihood that the defendant will abscond; (2) There is a likelihood that the defendant would pose a continued threat to society by continuing to commit crimes.” This was sufficient compliance with the requirements of our law. See Lane v. State, 247 Ga. 387, 389 (276 SE2d 644).

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, P. J., and Carley, J., concur. [574]*574Decided March 10, 1982. Thomas J. Hough, Jr., for appellant. William A. Foster III, District Attorney, Jeff Richards, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 S.E.2d 23, 161 Ga. App. 573, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccormick-v-state-gactapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack