Wendell S. Henry v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wendell S. Henry v. State

DecidedDecember 4, 2013

DocketA14A0454

StatusPublished

This text of Wendell S. Henry v. State (Wendell S. Henry 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

Wendell S. Henry v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________ December 04, 2013

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A0454. WENDELL S. HENRY v. THE STATE.

Wendell S. Henry, who has been charged with multiple counts of the unauthorized practice of law, filed a “Plea in Bar, Special Demurrer, and Motion to Dismiss Amended Accusation.” Henry argued that certain counts of the accusation were barred by the statute of limitation and that the accusation was not perfect in form. The trial court granted the motion in part, finding that certain counts of the accusation were barred by the statute of limitation. The trial court otherwise denied the motion, and Henry filed this appeal. As a general rule, a right of direct appeal lies from a final judgment; that is, where the case is no longer pending below. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). The Supreme Court has created limited exceptions to this rule. See Hubbard v. State, 254 Ga. 694 (333 SE2d 827) (1985) (statutory speedy trial claim); Patterson v. State, 248 Ga. 875 (287 SE2d 7) (1982) (double jeopardy). But the Supreme Court has declined to extend these limited exceptions. See Crane v. State, 281 Ga. 635, 636 (641 SE2d 795) (2007) (defendant may not directly appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss under OCGA § 16-3-24.2). Here, Henry did not base his plea in bar on either a statutory speedy trial claim or a claim of double jeopardy. Accordingly, he was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedure to obtain appellate review. See Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782 (437 SE2d 810) (1993) (appeal of order overruling special demurrer required compliance with interlocutory appeal procedure). Because Henry failed to comply with the requisite interlocutory procedures, this premature appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 12/04/2013 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________ December 04, 2013

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A0454. WENDELL S. HENRY v. THE STATE.

Wendell S. Henry, who has been charged with multiple counts of the unauthorized practice of law, filed a “Plea in Bar, Special Demurrer, and Motion to Dismiss Amended Accusation.” Henry argued that certain counts of the accusation were barred by the statute of limitation and that the accusation was not perfect in form. The trial court granted the motion in part, finding that certain counts of the accusation were barred by the statute of limitation. The trial court otherwise denied the motion, and Henry filed this appeal. As a general rule, a right of direct appeal lies from a final judgment; that is, where the case is no longer pending below. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). The Supreme Court has created limited exceptions to this rule. See Hubbard v. State, 254 Ga. 694 (333 SE2d 827) (1985) (statutory speedy trial claim); Patterson v. State, 248 Ga. 875 (287 SE2d 7) (1982) (double jeopardy). But the Supreme Court has declined to extend these limited exceptions. See Crane v. State, 281 Ga. 635, 636 (641 SE2d 795) (2007) (defendant may not directly appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss under OCGA § 16-3-24.2). Here, Henry did not base his plea in bar on either a statutory speedy trial claim or a claim of double jeopardy. Accordingly, he was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedure to obtain appellate review. See Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782 (437 SE2d 810) (1993) (appeal of order overruling special demurrer required compliance with interlocutory appeal procedure). Because Henry failed to comply with the requisite interlocutory procedures, this premature appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 12/04/2013 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wendell S. Henry v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wendell-s-henry-v-state-gactapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack