Stevens v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stevens v. State

314 S.E.2d 481, 169 Ga. App. 646, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1661

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 31, 1984

Docket67333

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 314 S.E.2d 481 (Stevens 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

Stevens v. State, 314 S.E.2d 481, 169 Ga. App. 646, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1661 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

McMurray, Chief Judge.

Defendant was indicted separately for three distinct incidents in which he sold a quantity of marijuana to another and therein is charged with the offense of violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. The defendant entered a plea of guilty to the three separate charges and was sentenced.

The defendant has moved for a new trial and the trial court considered its substance, rather than form, as being one to withdraw the plea of guilty. After consideration of same it was denied, and the defendant appeals. Held:

The state has moved to dismiss for the failure to file any enumeration of error. However, the defendant has filed a voluminous document which this court treats as enumerating various errors to the denial of the withdrawal of his guilty plea as well as a brief in support of same. We proceed to review based on this document.

1. His first complaint is that he was mentally ill, that is, “not himself’ and his case should have been handled as one involving a mentally ill person. Examination of the trial court’s order denying the withdrawal of his plea of guilty shows clearly that the trial court considered, in accepting the plea, whether or not the plea of guilty was intelligently and voluntarily entered and determined the defendant was cognizant of all of the rights he was waiving and the possible consequences of his plea and found the guilty plea was intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily entered. See Roberts v. Greenway, 233 Ga. 473, 475 (1) (211 SE2d 764). Compare Purvis v. Connell, 227 Ga. 764, 768 (182 SE2d 892). Accordingly, we find no merit in this complaint as the trial court has in no wise abused its discretion in its acceptance of the defendant’s guilty plea and in sentencing him upon the plea of guilty.

2. Defendant seeks to have us examine the evidence with reference to his conviction and sentence as being a motion in the nature of one seeking a new trial. However, as one who has filed a plea *647 of guilty in a criminal case, he cannot move for a new trial as there has been no verdict. See Alligood v. State, 108 Ga. App. 453, 454 (1) (133 SE2d 431); Bearden v. State, 13 Ga. App. 264 (1) (79 SE 79). Compare Conlogue v. State, 243 Ga. 141, 144 (253 SE2d 168); Amos v. State, 161 Ga. App. 281, 283 (2) (287 SE2d 743). Consequently, all enumerations of error involving consideration of evidence and alleged harmful error committed during a trial cannot be considered.

Decided January 31, 1984. Curtis Stevens, pro se. Glenn Thomas, Jr., District Attorney, John B. Johnson III, Chief Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

3. The matter addressed being within the sound discretion of the trial court and finding no abuse, we affirm the judgment. See OCGA § 17-7-93 (formerly Code Ann. § 27-1404); Marshall v. State, 128 Ga. App. 413 (1) (197 SE2d 161).

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

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

McMurray, Chief Judge.

Defendant was indicted separately for three distinct incidents in which he sold a quantity of marijuana to another and therein is charged with the offense of violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. The defendant entered a plea of guilty to the three separate charges and was sentenced.

The defendant has moved for a new trial and the trial court considered its substance, rather than form, as being one to withdraw the plea of guilty. After consideration of same it was denied, and the defendant appeals. Held:

The state has moved to dismiss for the failure to file any enumeration of error. However, the defendant has filed a voluminous document which this court treats as enumerating various errors to the denial of the withdrawal of his guilty plea as well as a brief in support of same. We proceed to review based on this document.

1. His first complaint is that he was mentally ill, that is, “not himself’ and his case should have been handled as one involving a mentally ill person. Examination of the trial court’s order denying the withdrawal of his plea of guilty shows clearly that the trial court considered, in accepting the plea, whether or not the plea of guilty was intelligently and voluntarily entered and determined the defendant was cognizant of all of the rights he was waiving and the possible consequences of his plea and found the guilty plea was intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily entered. See Roberts v. Greenway, 233 Ga. 473, 475 (1) (211 SE2d 764). Compare Purvis v. Connell, 227 Ga. 764, 768 (182 SE2d 892). Accordingly, we find no merit in this complaint as the trial court has in no wise abused its discretion in its acceptance of the defendant’s guilty plea and in sentencing him upon the plea of guilty.

2. Defendant seeks to have us examine the evidence with reference to his conviction and sentence as being a motion in the nature of one seeking a new trial. However, as one who has filed a plea *647 of guilty in a criminal case, he cannot move for a new trial as there has been no verdict. See Alligood v. State, 108 Ga. App. 453, 454 (1) (133 SE2d 431); Bearden v. State, 13 Ga. App. 264 (1) (79 SE 79). Compare Conlogue v. State, 243 Ga. 141, 144 (253 SE2d 168); Amos v. State, 161 Ga. App. 281, 283 (2) (287 SE2d 743). Consequently, all enumerations of error involving consideration of evidence and alleged harmful error committed during a trial cannot be considered.

Decided January 31, 1984. Curtis Stevens, pro se. Glenn Thomas, Jr., District Attorney, John B. Johnson III, Chief Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

3. The matter addressed being within the sound discretion of the trial court and finding no abuse, we affirm the judgment. See OCGA § 17-7-93 (formerly Code Ann. § 27-1404); Marshall v. State, 128 Ga. App. 413 (1) (197 SE2d 161).

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 S.E.2d 481, 169 Ga. App. 646, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-state-gactapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack