Vaid v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Vaid v. State

302 S.E.2d 631, 165 Ga. App. 823, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2027

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 17, 1983

Docket65517

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 302 S.E.2d 631 (Vaid 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

Vaid v. State, 302 S.E.2d 631, 165 Ga. App. 823, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2027 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Shulman, Chief Judge.

In this appeal from his conviction for practicing law without a license (OCGA § 15-19-51 (Code Ann. § 9-402)), appellant’s sole enumeration of error is that there was a fatal variance between the allegata and the probata. The accusation under which appellant was tried alleged that appellant held himself out to another as an attorney and prepared and filed a bankruptcy petition. Appellant’s variance argument is based on the absence of testimony that appellant typed or handwrote the bankruptcy petition or that appellant personally went to the bankruptcy court and delivered the petition for filing. There was, however, evidence that appellant held himself out as a lawyer, that he agreed to prepare the bankruptcy petition and told the individual for whom the petition was to be prepared that he would file it, that he took information from that individual for the purpose of preparing the petition, and that he represented himself to another person as an attorney representing the individual for whom the bankruptcy petition was prepared. There was also testimony identifying the bankruptcy petition which was filed in bankruptcy court. Considering the totality of the evidence, the state proved what the accusation alleged. There was no variance.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

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

Shulman, Chief Judge.

In this appeal from his conviction for practicing law without a license (OCGA § 15-19-51 (Code Ann. § 9-402)), appellant’s sole enumeration of error is that there was a fatal variance between the allegata and the probata. The accusation under which appellant was tried alleged that appellant held himself out to another as an attorney and prepared and filed a bankruptcy petition. Appellant’s variance argument is based on the absence of testimony that appellant typed or handwrote the bankruptcy petition or that appellant personally went to the bankruptcy court and delivered the petition for filing. There was, however, evidence that appellant held himself out as a lawyer, that he agreed to prepare the bankruptcy petition and told the individual for whom the petition was to be prepared that he would file it, that he took information from that individual for the purpose of preparing the petition, and that he represented himself to another person as an attorney representing the individual for whom the bankruptcy petition was prepared. There was also testimony identifying the bankruptcy petition which was filed in bankruptcy court. Considering the totality of the evidence, the state proved what the accusation alleged. There was no variance.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 S.E.2d 631, 165 Ga. App. 823, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaid-v-state-gactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack