Forbus v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Forbus and Nicholson v. State

    295 S.E.2d 530 (Ga. 1982)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    After consideration, we approve the holding in Adamczyk and find it applicable to this case. See Forbus v. State, 162 Ga. App. 307 ( 290 S.E.2d 559) (1982). It should be noted that Adamczyk is consistent with our recent holdings in McCarty v. State, 249 Ga. 618 ( 292 S.E.2d 700) (1982), State v. Madigan, 249 Ga. 571 (2) ( 292 S.E.2d 406) (1982), and State v. Meminger, 249 Ga. 561 (1) ( 292 S.E.2d 681) (1982).

  2. Ferris v. State

    324 S.E.2d 762 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 23 times
    In Ferris v. State, 172 Ga. App. 729 (1) (324 S.E.2d 762) (1984), we found the defendant's demand which sought a "speed[y] trial of any or all charges" was insufficient to invoke the sanction of acquittal of OCGA § 17-7-170 solely because it did not identify the charges against the defendant by name, date, term of court or case number.

    The cases cited by the State in support of the contention that Ferris' letter does not constitute a sufficient demand are distinguishable on their facts in that they concern either situations in which neither the words "speedy trial" nor a substantial equivalent is used, or situations in which the demand for a speedy trial is "buried" in a document so ambiguously or even deceptively captioned as to provide no notice that it contains a speedy trial demand. For example, in Forbus v. State, 162 Ga. App. 307 ( 290 S.E.2d 559) (1982), aff'd 250 Ga. 24 ( 295 S.E.2d 530) (1982), a letter to the district attorney included, inter alia, a sentence asking that functionary to "please accept this letter as a formal demand for a trial by jury"; there was no caption, and no other part of the letter constituted a statement that could even remotely represent a demand for speedy trial. The court correctly held that the quoted sentence was insufficient.

  3. Dickerson v. State

    322 S.E.2d 502 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)

    Defendant's demands for jury trial on the DeKalb indictments, which did not specifically demand to be tried within the next succeeding term of court, were not sufficient to invoke OCGA § 17-7-170. State v. Adamczyk, 162 Ga. App. 288 ( 290 S.E.2d 149). Accord State v. Pope, 162 Ga. App. 290 ( 291 S.E.2d 265); State v. Edwards, 162 Ga. App. 291 ( 290 S.E.2d 362); State v. Floyd, 162 Ga. App. 291 ( 291 S.E.2d 264); Forbus v. State, 162 Ga. App. 307 ( 290 S.E.2d 559); Wallace v. State, 162 Ga. App. 367 (1) ( 291 S.E.2d 437); Forbus Nicholson v. State, 250 Ga. 24 ( 295 S.E.2d 530). Retrospective application, State v. King, 164 Ga. App. 834 ( 298 S.E.2d 586). Accordingly, defendant's allegations of error are without merit.