Carlisle v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Sevostiyanova v. State

    313 Ga. App. 729 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that appellant waived challenge to indictment but, even if it had not been waived, the challenge would fail because indictment charged that defendant committed act "unlawfully," and relying upon Tidwell

    This enumeration fails. 277 Ga. 99, 586 S.E.2d 240 (2003). Id. at 100, 586 S.E.2d 240.

  2. Davis v. Wilson

    280 Ga. 29 (Ga. 2005)   Cited 5 times
    Addressing petition for mandamus to compel a superior court to rule on defendant's pre-trial motion alleging that the State had not complied with his demand for speedy trial

    Coker v. State, 181 Ga. App. 559, 560 ( 353 SE2d 56) (1987); Ciprotti v. State, 187 Ga. App. 61, 63 ( 369 SE2d 337) (1988); Bond v. State, 212 Ga. App. 608, 609-610 ( 442 SE2d 482) (1994); Day v. State, 216 Ga. App. 29, 30 ( 453 SE2d 73) (1994).Carlisle v. State, 277 Ga. 99, 101 ( 586 SE2d 240) (2003). See OCGA § 17-3-1 (d) (statute of limitation on misdemeanors is two years).

  3. Sevostiyanova v. State

    A11A1864 (Ga. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2012)

    This enumeration fails. 277 Ga. 99 (586 SE2d 240) (2003). Id. at 100.

  4. Carlisle v. State

    601 S.E.2d 358 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)

    MIKELL, Judge. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case and, in Carlisle v. State, 277 Ga. 99 ( 586 SE2d 240) (2003), reversed the judgment of this Court. Therefore, we vacate our earlier opinion and adopt the judgment of the Supreme Court as our own.

  5. State v. Outen

    296 Ga. 40 (Ga. 2014)   Cited 11 times

    “After that time, the prosecution cannot be recommenced, absent a statutory ground for the suspension of the statute of limitation.” Carlisle v. State, 277 Ga. 99, 101, 586 S.E.2d 240 (2003).As discussed previously, Outen was charged with felony vehicular homicide based on events that occurred on March 21, 2007.

  6. State v. Dempsey

    290 Ga. 763 (Ga. 2012)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that OCGA § 17–7–110 applies to a motion to quash an indictment based on an elected official's illegal service on the grand jury

    “[A]fter a nolle prosequi, the State may reindict a defendant for the crimes at issue ‘within the applicable statute of limitation, or within six months after the entry of the nolle pros if that occurs later.’ [Carlisle v. State, 277 Ga. 99, 101, 586 S.E.2d 240 (2003)].” Davis v. Wilson, 280 Ga. 29, 622 S.E.2d 325 (2005).

  7. Hicks v. State

    315 Ga. App. 779 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 5 times
    Noting that “the allegations of the indictment did not constitute evidence”

    Under Georgia law, if the State obtains an indictment within the time allowed, and a nolle prosequi is later entered as to the first indictment, the State may re-indict the defendant within six months after the entry of nolle prosequi, regardless of the intervening expiration of the initial limitation period. Carlisle v. State, 277 Ga. 99, 100–101, 586 S.E.2d 240 (2003); Sallie v. State, 276 Ga. 506, 513–514(12), 578 S.E.2d 444 (2003). Because the State re-indicted Hicks within six months of the entry of the nolle prosequi, the trial court did not err in denying his plea in bar.