State v. Redd
This text of 546 S.E.2d 68 (State v. Redd) 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.
Opinion
On December 17, 1999, we granted interlocutory review to the State, which appealed from the trial court’s denial of its motion to disqualify attorney Charles Reddick from the representation of criminal defendants — including appellee Mark Allen Redd — because Charles Reddick is a district attorney pro tempore.* 1 The State [313]*313claimed that the trial court’s order conflicted with OCGA §§ 15-18-10 (d) and 15-18-21 (a), as well as with ethical proscriptions against dual representation which result in a per se conflict of interest. Based on the State’s position, the trial court’s order would arguably have been void under the laws of this State because the court’s order permitted Redd to be represented in a criminal matter by an attorney disqualified per se from the private practice of criminal law.
We affirmed the trial court, and the State filed for certiorari on the merits. On January 5, „2001, the Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari and, on the same day, executed an order as follows: “Because the State is not authorized to appeal a trial court’s denial of a motion to disqualify an attorney under OCGA § 5-7-1, we remand the case to the Court of Appeals with direction to vacate its judgment and dismiss the appeal.” 2 Accordingly, we vacate our opinion in State v. Redd, 243 Ga. App. 809 (534 SE2d 473) (2000), and dismiss the State’s appeal.
Opinion vacated and appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
546 S.E.2d 68, 248 Ga. App. 312, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 1007, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-redd-gactapp-2001.