Therefore, these issues are not properly the subject of an extraordinary motion for a new trial. See Douthit v. State, 244 Ga. 471 ( 260 S.E.2d 875); Goodwin v. State, 240 Ga. 605 ( 242 S.E.2d 119). As Balkcom's appeal is untimely or is otherwise subject to the discretionary appeals procedure, it must be dismissed.
Defendant's motion was properly denied because those enumerations are not proper subjects for consideration by extraordinary motion for a new trial. Goodwin v. State, 240 Ga. 605 ( 242 S.E.2d 119) (1978); Dix v. State, 244 Ga. 464 ( 260 S.E.2d 863) (1979); Blake v. State, 244 Ga. 466 ( 260 S.E.2d 876) (1979); Douthit v. State, 244 Ga. 471 ( 260 S.E.2d 875) (1979). As stated in Ga. Prac. and Proc., ยง 19-3 (4th ed.): "[I]n no event will the motion be good unless the movant could not, by the exercise of proper diligence, have known of the grounds thereof in time to have incorporated them into the ordinary motion for new trial."
Such contention is not a proper ground for an extraordinary motion for new trial. See Douthit v.State, 244 Ga. 471 ( 260 S.E.2d 875) (1979) and cit. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.