Douthit v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Balkcom v. State

    227 Ga. App. 327 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 34 times
    Appointing new counsel, bringing appellant back to court from prison, setting and holding a hearing, and denying the motion on the merits, all demonstrated that the trial court permitted an out-of-time motion for new trial

    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.

  2. Gaddis v. State

    265 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. 1980)   Cited 8 times

    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."

  3. Dobbs v. State

    245 Ga. 208 (Ga. 1980)   Cited 17 times

    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.