Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Wheeler v. State

Wheeler v. State

499 S.E.2d 629, 269 Ga. 547
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 4, 1998
DocketS98A0820
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 499 S.E.2d 629 (Wheeler v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wheeler v. State, 499 S.E.2d 629, 269 Ga. 547 (Ga. 1998).

Opinion

Benham, Chief Justice.

Facing prosecution for a number of charges arising from the September 1996 murder of a woman and the aggravated assault of her male companion, appellant John Dean Wheeler pled guilty to the murder charge in February 1997 and was sentenced to life imprison *548 ment. 1 Nine months later, in December 1997, appellant filed a motion for out-of-time appeal in which he contended that his appellate rights had not been exercised in a timely fashion because his attorney did not file an appeal. Appellant brings this appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion.

Decided May 4, 1998 Reconsideration denied June 26,1998. John D. Wheeler, pro se. J. David Miller, District Attorney, Anthony S. Gunn, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

As the movant for an out-of-time appeal, appellant had to establish a good and sufficient reason which entitled him to an out-of-time appeal. Smith v. State, 266 Ga. 687 (470 SE2d 436) (1996). To meet this burden of proof, appellant had to set forth the questions he would raise should the appeal be granted, and show that the questions could be resolved by facts appearing in the appellate record. Id. Appellant has alleged only that his attorney’s inadequate performance was the reason why no timely appeal was filed; appellant has not set forth the questions he would raise in an out-of-time appeal and that the questions could be resolved by facts in the record. The trial court did not err when it denied the motion for out-of-time appeal. Id.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
1

The trial court granted the district attorney’s motion to nol pros the remaining charges.

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

Related

Collier v. State
307 Ga. 363 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2019)
Wetherington v. State
769 S.E.2d 53 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2015)
White v. State
594 S.E.2d 329 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2004)
Pearson v. State
594 S.E.2d 769 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)
White v. State
584 S.E.2d 5 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)
Johanson v. State
581 S.E.2d 564 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)
Cain v. State
573 S.E.2d 46 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002)
Neisler v. State
556 S.E.2d 258 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
Rodriguez-Martinez v. State
533 S.E.2d 443 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Brown v. State
526 S.E.2d 873 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Syms v. State
523 S.E.2d 42 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Dover v. State
516 S.E.2d 839 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
499 S.E.2d 629, 269 Ga. 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeler-v-state-ga-1998.