Sandersv. State, 280 Ga. 780, 782 (1), 631 S.E.2d 344 (2006); accord Broomfield v. State, 264 Ga. 145, 147 (2), 442 S E.2d 242 (1994).Sanders, 280 Ga. at 782 (1), 631 S.E.2d 344; see Layman v. State, 280 Ga. 794, 794-95, 631 S.E 2d 107 (2006) (holding that "[u]nder the plain language of OCGA § 17-8-3 … the State does not need the defendant’s consent to obtain an order of nolle prosequi before the case has been submitted to a jury"); McIntyrev. State, 189 Ga. App. 764, 765 (1), 377 S.E.2d 532 (1989) (explaining that ‘‘[a] nolle prosequi pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-3 may be entered without the consent of the accused at any time prior to the attachment of jeopardy").

Further, an order of nolle prosequi may be entered without the consent of the accused at any time prior to the attachment of jeopardy. OCGA § 17-8-3; McIntyre v. State, 189 Ga. App. 764, 765 (1) ( 377 SE2d 532) (1989). However, this does not result in the defendant having no standing to seek an appeal of the nolle prosequi order.

[Cits.]" McIntyre v. State, 189 Ga. App. 764, 765 (1) ( 377 SE2d 532) (1989). The majority relies upon OCGA § 17-7-71 (f) for the proposition that the amended accusation did not constitute a superseding charging instrument to which the right of arraignment attached.

Even if this appeal were timely, however, none of the orders at issue present a cognizable basis for an appeal. See Polanco v. State, 313 Ga. 598, 599 (872 S.E.2d 268) (2022) (a trial court's entry of an order dismissing a defendant's motion for out-of-time appeal "will be unlikely to present any cognizable basis for an appeal"); OCGA § 17-8-3 (a nolle prosequi may be entered without the consent of the accused at any time prior to the attachment of jeopardy); McIntyre v. State, 189 Ga.App. 764, 765(1), 377 S.E.2d 532 (1989) (same).

Martin v. State, 73 Ga. App. 573, 575 (1) ( 37 SE2d 411) (1946); Rhear v. State, 171 Ga. App. 435, 436 (1) ( 319 SE2d 895) (1984) (quoting Martin). See also McIntyre v. State, 189 Ga. App. 764, 765 (1) ( 377 SE2d 532) (1989) ("A nolle prosequi pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-3 may be entered without the consent of the accused at any time prior to the attachment of jeopardy"). Thus, this case had been submitted to the jury within the meaning of the Code section.

(Citations omitted.) McIntyre v. State, 189 Ga. App. 764, 765 ( 377 SE2d 532) (1989). Judgment affirmed.

. . ." OCGA § 17-8-3; see McIntyre v. State, 189 Ga. App. 764 ( 377 S.E.2d 532) (1989); Newman v. State, 166 Ga. App. 609 ( 305 S.E.2d 123) (1983); Fortson v. State, 13 Ga. App. 681 ( 79 S.E. 746) (1913). It cannot be determined from the record before this court what occurred at the time the nolle prosequi was entered on indictment number 91-6268; the appellant has only provided this court with a record and transcript of the proceedings in indictment number 91-6335 which does not contain any reference to the entry of the nolle prosequi in indictment number 91-6268.

Similarly, the court made no factual finding concerning the charge of driving without insurance, as that charge was nol prossed. Appellant makes no challenge to the entry of the nolle prosequi, compare McIntyre v. State, 189 Ga. App. 764-765 (1) ( 377 S.E.2d 532) (1989), and we note that he cannot present a valid challenge here, as entry of a nolle prosequi may be made without the defendant's consent prior to the attachment of jeopardy. Id. at 765 (2).