From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stone v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
May 12, 1981
281 S.E.2d 278 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

61845.

DECIDED MAY 12, 1981.

D. U. I. Catoosa Superior Court. Before Judge Coker.

William Earl Glisson, for appellant.

David L. Lomenick, Jr., District Attorney, James A. Meaney, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.


The appellant was convicted at a bench trial in the Probate Court of Catoosa County of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants. It appears that no verbatim transcript of the trial was taken. However, a "transcript of record" prepared by the appellant and authorized by the probate judge accompanied appellant's petition for certiorari to the superior court. The superior court in its disposition order recited that ". . . it is unclear [from the transcript] whether or not the probate court considered and relied upon the results of an intoximeter test in reaching its verdict without first receiving such results into evidence." Because of this, and in spite of a further finding that there was sufficient other evidence to support conviction, the superior court ordered a new trial. On appeal, appellant contends that reversal of his conviction, rather than a new trial, was required. Held:

The order appealed from was favorable to the appellant, thus providing no basis for appeal. See Bivens v. Todd, 222 Ga. 84 (1) ( 148 S.E.2d 424) (1966); Cauley v. State, 130 Ga. App. 278 (2) ( 203 S.E.2d 239) (1973).

Appeal dismissed. Deen, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

DECIDED MAY 12, 1981.


Summaries of

Stone v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
May 12, 1981
281 S.E.2d 278 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

Stone v. State

Case Details

Full title:STONE v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: May 12, 1981

Citations

281 S.E.2d 278 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
281 S.E.2d 278

Citing Cases

Parker v. Turk

See also Benton v. State, 150 Ga. App. 647 ( 258 S.E.2d 298) (1979). While the judgment of the municipal…

Few v. State

We note, however, that to the extent that this contention evinces dissatisfaction with the court's decision…