William Howard v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

William Howard v. State

DecidedJune 2, 2023

DocketA23A0231

StatusPublished

This text of William Howard v. State (William Howard 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

William Howard v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ June 02, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A0231. HOWARD v. THE STATE.

This interlocutory appeal is from a trial court order granting the state’s motion to introduce other acts evidence and denying the defendant’s motion to exclude such evidence. We granted the defendant’s application for interlocutory appeal in order to consider what appeared to be an issue of first impression involving the interplay between OCGA § 17-7-95 (c), limiting the use of a defendant’s plea of nolo contendere against him in another proceeding, and OCGA § 24-4-414, permitting the use of evidence of the commission of an offense of child molestation. But having now had the opportunity to review the record, it appears that the trial court has not yet ruled on this issue, which was not raised in either the state’s motion to introduce the other acts evidence or the defendant’s motion to exclude it. Rather, the issue was raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration that was filed after the issuance of the certificate of immediate review and upon which there is no ruling in the record before us. “[T]his [c]ourt cannot address any issue on which the trial court did not rule. Indeed, this [c]ourt is for the correction of errors of law, and when the trial court has not ruled on an issue, we will not address it.” Stanley v. Govt. Emps. Ins. Co., 344 Ga. App. 342, 346 (2) (810 SE2d 179) (2018) ) (citations and punctuation omitted). Accord State v. McCarter, 314 Ga. App. 542, 545 n. 13 (724 SE2d 843) (2012); Schaff v. State, 304 Ga. App. 638, 641 (1) n. 10 (697 SE2d 305) (2010). Because the trial court did not rule on the issue that was the basis for our grant of the application in this case, the interlocutory appeal is hereby dismissed as having been improvidently granted. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 06/02/2023 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,____________________ June 02, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A0231. HOWARD v. THE STATE.

This interlocutory appeal is from a trial court order granting the state’s motion to introduce other acts evidence and denying the defendant’s motion to exclude such evidence. We granted the defendant’s application for interlocutory appeal in order to consider what appeared to be an issue of first impression involving the interplay between OCGA § 17-7-95 (c), limiting the use of a defendant’s plea of nolo contendere against him in another proceeding, and OCGA § 24-4-414, permitting the use of evidence of the commission of an offense of child molestation. But having now had the opportunity to review the record, it appears that the trial court has not yet ruled on this issue, which was not raised in either the state’s motion to introduce the other acts evidence or the defendant’s motion to exclude it. Rather, the issue was raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration that was filed after the issuance of the certificate of immediate review and upon which there is no ruling in the record before us. “[T]his [c]ourt cannot address any issue on which the trial court did not rule. Indeed, this [c]ourt is for the correction of errors of law, and when the trial court has not ruled on an issue, we will not address it.” Stanley v. Govt. Emps. Ins. Co., 344 Ga. App. 342, 346 (2) (810 SE2d 179) (2018) ) (citations and punctuation omitted). Accord State v. McCarter, 314 Ga. App. 542, 545 n. 13 (724 SE2d 843) (2012); Schaff v. State, 304 Ga. App. 638, 641 (1) n. 10 (697 SE2d 305) (2010). Because the trial court did not rule on the issue that was the basis for our grant of the application in this case, the interlocutory appeal is hereby dismissed as having been improvidently granted. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 06/02/2023 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)

William Howard v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-howard-v-state-gactapp-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack