Hudson v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Gray v. State

    310 Ga. 259 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 13 times
    Explaining that " ‘statutes are presumed to be enacted by the legislature with full knowledge of the existing condition of the law and with reference to it’ " and that " ‘common-law rules are still of force and effect ... except where they have been changed by express statutory enactment or by necessary implication’ "

    After the enactment of OCGA § 17-10-1 (f) in 2001, despite the change in language from previous statutes, the Court of Appeals has continued to follow the common-law rule as to motions filed within the term of court or before the statutory deadline. See Jones v. State , 348 Ga. App. 653, 654 (1), 824 S.E.2d 575 (2019) ; Patterson v. State , 347 Ga. App. 105, 107 (1), 817 S.E.2d 557 (2018) ; Pendleton v. State , 335 Ga. App. 455, 455-56, 781 S.E.2d 570 (2016) ; Richardson v. State , 334 Ga. App. 344, 346, 779 S.E.2d 406 (2015) ; Hudson v. State , 334 Ga. App. 166, 167 (1), 778 S.E.2d 406 (2015) ; Myrick v. State , 325 Ga. App. 607, 607 n.1, 754 S.E.2d 395 (2014) ; Valldeparas v. State , 319 Ga. App. 491, 493 (1), 735 S.E.2d 816 (2012) ; Bradberry v. State , 315 Ga. App. 434, 435, 727 S.E.2d 208 (2012) ; Grady v. State , 311 Ga. App. 620, 620-21, 716 S.E.2d 747 (2011) ; State v. Fredericks , 256 Ga. App. 401, 403, 568 S.E.2d 489 (2002). The key question, then, is whether the addition of the word "jurisdiction" to the statute's grant of "power and authority" to the trial court clearly overrides the common-law rule, and we conclude that it does not.

  2. Waller v. State

    365 Ga. App. 693 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)

    See Hudson v. State , 334 Ga. App. 166, 169 (2), 778 S.E.2d 406 (2015) (holding that OCGA § 16-8-41 (b), which provides that one convicted of armed robbery shall be punished by life in prison or imprisonment of ten to twenty years, was not ambiguous and therefore the rule of lenity did not apply). Although Waller argues that the trial court improperly relied upon two of the convictions offered by the State at sentencing, the State also provided three other of Waller's prior convictions for the sale of cocaine.

  3. Gray v. State

    351 Ga. App. 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    We admit that the parties’ interpretation of the statutory rule may have been reasonable given that one could read prior cases from this Court as suggesting that the only factor relevant to the time limitations set forth in OCGA § 17-10-1 (f) is whether the defendant filed a timely motion. See Jones v. State , 348 Ga. App. 653, 654 (1), 824 S.E.2d 575 (2019) ; Patterson v. State , 347 Ga. App. 105, 107 (1), 817 S.E.2d 557 (2018) ; Pendleton v. State , 335 Ga. App. 455, 455-456 (1), 781 S.E.2d 570 (2016) ; Richardson v. State , 334 Ga. App. 344, 346, 779 S.E.2d 406 (2015) ; Hudson v. State , 334 Ga. App. 166, 167 (1), 778 S.E.2d 406 (2015) ; Myrick v. State , 325 Ga. App. 607, n. 1, 754 S.E.2d 395 (2014) ; Valldeparas v. State , 319 Ga. App. 491, 493 (1), 735 S.E.2d 816 (2012) ; Bradberry v. State , 315 Ga. App. 434, 435, 727 S.E.2d 208 (2012) ; Grady v. State , 311 Ga. App. 620, 620-621, 716 S.E.2d 747 (2011). These cases are distinguishable, however, because none address the specific issue resolved in this opinion.

  4. Mitchell v. State

    343 Ga. App. 116 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 8 times
    Reviewing application of rule of lenity

    Because OCGA § 16–5–23.1 (f) (2) (B) is unambiguous, the rule of lenity does not apply. Hudson v. State, 334 Ga.App. 166, 168 (2) n. 3, 778 S.E.2d 406 (2015). ("The rule of lenity is a rule of construction that is applied only when an ambiguity still exists after having applied the traditional canons of statutory construction.") (citation and punctuation omitted).

  5. Ray v. State

    338 Ga. App. 822 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that severance of joint prosecution was not warranted when there was evidence that the co-defendants all played a role in a single robbery, and they all claimed to have had no involvement in the crime

    (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Hudson v. State , 334 Ga.App. 166, 168 (2), 778 S.E.2d 406 (2015), quoting Corey v. State , 216 Ga.App. 180, 180–181, 454 S.E.2d 154 (1995).Therefore, Brown's arguments based on the vagueness of OCGA § 16–8–41 (b) are without merit.