Zamora v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Zamora v. State

485 S.E.2d 214, 226 Ga. App. 105, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 1483, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 389

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided March 12, 1997·No. A97A0720·Published·Cited by 60 cases

Opinions

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

This is a direct appeal from an order of adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence in a first offender case. The two enumerations of error complain of the sentence imposed on defendant Zamora following the revocation of his probation. Held:

In Dean v. State, 177 Ga. App. 123, 124 (1) (338 SE2d 711), this Court concluded that the discretionary appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-35 is applicable to the revocation of “first-offender” probation. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5). And this rule has been previously recognized in an appeal where all issues related only to the sentence imposed rather than to the revocation of probation. Tallant v. State, 187 Ga. App. 138 (369 SE2d 789). Thus, Zamora’s failure to comply with those requisite discretionary procedures deprive this Court of jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal must be dismissed. [106]*106Merciers v. State, 212 Ga. App. 424 (444 SE2d 416).

Decided March 12, 1997 Reconsideration denied April 7, 1997 Before Judge Caldwell. Peter J. Ross, Larry H. Tatum, for appellant. William T. McBroom III, District Attorney, Randall K. Coggin, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Appeal dismissed.

Smith, J., concurs. Beasley, J., concurs specially.

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

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

This is a direct appeal from an order of adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence in a first offender case. The two enumerations of error complain of the sentence imposed on defendant Zamora following the revocation of his probation. Held:

In Dean v. State, 177 Ga. App. 123, 124 (1) (338 SE2d 711), this Court concluded that the discretionary appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-35 is applicable to the revocation of “first-offender” probation. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5). And this rule has been previously recognized in an appeal where all issues related only to the sentence imposed rather than to the revocation of probation. Tallant v. State, 187 Ga. App. 138 (369 SE2d 789). Thus, Zamora’s failure to comply with those requisite discretionary procedures deprive this Court of jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal must be dismissed. [106]*106Merciers v. State, 212 Ga. App. 424 (444 SE2d 416).

Decided March 12, 1997 Reconsideration denied April 7, 1997 Before Judge Caldwell. Peter J. Ross, Larry H. Tatum, for appellant. William T. McBroom III, District Attorney, Randall K. Coggin, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Appeal dismissed.

Smith, J., concurs. Beasley, J., concurs specially.

Zamora v. State, 485 S.E.2d 214, 226 Ga. App. 105, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 1483, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 389 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

485 S.E.2d 214 (Zamora v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related