Summary
dismissing direct appeals from trial court's denial of the defendants' motions to dismiss the indictment due to an alleged constitutional speedy trial violation because eight days before, the Supreme Court had determined that such orders were no longer directly appealable but had to follow the interlocutory application procedures
Summary of this case from Murphy v. MurphyOpinion
Nos. S12A1795 S12A1796.
2012-11-27
STEVENS v. The STATE. Lee v. The State.
Jennifer Sullivan Hanson, Bruce Steven Harvey, K. Julie Hojnacki, Kimberly Hargrave Cornwell, Law Offices Of Bruce S. Harvey, Atlanta, for appellant. Cheveda McCamy, Paul L. Howard, Jr., Dist. Atty., Christopher Michael Quinn, Sr. Asst. Dist. Atty., Paige Reese Whitaker, Deputy Dist. Atty., Office of the District Attorney, Paula Khristian Smith, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Samuel S. Olens, Atty. Gen., Department of Law, for appellee.
Jennifer Sullivan Hanson, Bruce Steven Harvey, K. Julie Hojnacki, Kimberly Hargrave Cornwell, Law Offices Of Bruce S. Harvey, Atlanta, for appellant. Cheveda McCamy, Paul L. Howard, Jr., Dist. Atty., Christopher Michael Quinn, Sr. Asst. Dist. Atty., Paige Reese Whitaker, Deputy Dist. Atty., Office of the District Attorney, Paula Khristian Smith, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Samuel S. Olens, Atty. Gen., Department of Law, for appellee.
BENHAM, Justice.
These appeals from the trial court's denial of the defendants's motions to dismiss the indictment due to an alleged constitutional speedy trial violation are dismissed for failure to follow the interlocutory procedures of OCGA § 5–6–34(b). Sosniak v. State, 292 Ga. 35, 734 S.E.2d 362 (2012).
Appeals dismissed.