Warren v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Warren v. State

244 S.E.2d 103, 145 Ga. App. 565, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2040

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 4, 1978

Docket55275

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 S.E.2d 103 (Warren 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

Warren v. State, 244 S.E.2d 103, 145 Ga. App. 565, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2040 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

Warren appeals from his convictions of rape and kidnapping. Enumerations of error one through four deal with the general grounds and the charge given, and they are meritless. The remaining nine enumerations of error deal with the court’s refusal to give certain requested charges. In his brief, as "support” for each of those nine enumerations of error, appellant merely sets out the particular requested charge and then states: "The charge was correct in statement of the law, as adjusted to the facts in the case, and the court’s failure to charge same was error and prejudicial to appellant.” This amounts to a [566]*566mere restatement of each enumeration, and we deem each of the nine enum erations of error to have been abandoned for lack of argument in the brief. Rule 18 (c) (2) of Court of Appeals (Code Ann. § 24-3618); Weaver v. State, 137 Ga. App. 470 (224 SE2d 110) (1976).

Submitted February 1, 1978 Decided April 4, 1978. Robert H. Green, Hugh P. Thompson, for appellant. Joseph H. Briley, District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

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

Smith, Judge.

Warren appeals from his convictions of rape and kidnapping. Enumerations of error one through four deal with the general grounds and the charge given, and they are meritless. The remaining nine enumerations of error deal with the court’s refusal to give certain requested charges. In his brief, as "support” for each of those nine enumerations of error, appellant merely sets out the particular requested charge and then states: "The charge was correct in statement of the law, as adjusted to the facts in the case, and the court’s failure to charge same was error and prejudicial to appellant.” This amounts to a [566]*566mere restatement of each enumeration, and we deem each of the nine enum erations of error to have been abandoned for lack of argument in the brief. Rule 18 (c) (2) of Court of Appeals (Code Ann. § 24-3618); Weaver v. State, 137 Ga. App. 470 (224 SE2d 110) (1976).

Submitted February 1, 1978 Decided April 4, 1978. Robert H. Green, Hugh P. Thompson, for appellant. Joseph H. Briley, District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 S.E.2d 103, 145 Ga. App. 565, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-state-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack