Raszeja v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Tyner v. State

    313 Ga. App. 557 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 19 times
    Finding no ineffective assistance because defendant did not disclose alleged mental health problem to trial counsel

    OCGA § 16–8–14(a)(1). 6. Raszeja v. State, 298 Ga.App. 713, 714(1), 680 S.E.2d 690 (2009) (punctuation omitted); see OCGA § 16–8–14(b)(1), (2). 7. Foster v. State, 192 Ga.App. 720, 720, 386 S.E.2d 383 (1989) (punctuation omitted).

  2. Fedina v. Larichev

    322 Ga. App. 76 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that a party waived the issue because she "did not seek access to the records before or during the trial, nor did she object to the order sealing the documents"

    And her contention that she intends to use the sealed documents as new evidence in her appeal is unavailing. See, e.g., Raszeja v. State, 298 Ga.App. 713, 714–715(2), 680 S.E.2d 690 (2009) (appellant waived argument regarding admission of copies of photographs by failing to move to compel production of the originals or to object to admission of the copies); Mallard v. Forest Heights Water Works, 260 Ga.App. 750, 752(2), 580 S.E.2d 602 (2003) (holding that appellant waived argument that the trial court erred by considering appellee's summary judgment motion without first ruling on appellant's motion to compel discovery responses because appellant never moved to continue the summary judgment ruling or otherwise object at the trial level). Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion.

  3. Trujillo v. State

    304 Ga. App. 849 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 12 times
    Determining that the trial court did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights by considering his undocumented immigration status as a relevant factor in formulating an appropriate sentence

    And, since the sentence otherwise fell within the statutorily authorized range, Trujillo offers no ground for reversal. See OCGA § 16-7-1 (a) (sentencing range for a first burglary offense is not less than one nor more than twenty years); Raszeja v. State, 298 Ga. App. 713, 716 (4) ( 680 SE2d 690) (2009) ("[T]his [C]ourt will not disturb a sentence within the statutory limits.") (punctuation and footnote omitted); Bennett v. State, 292 Ga. App. 382, 385 (1) ( 665 SE2d 365) (2008). 3. Trujillo next argues that the trial court "failed to exercise its discretion in sentencing [him] because it only considered whether or not to use its inflexible rule to withhold probation to illegal aliens."

  4. Litman v. State

    697 S.E.2d 855 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)

    However, absent an affirmative showing to the contrary, the trial court is presumed to have exercised its discretion in imposing a sentence within the limits provided by law. See Raszeja v. State, 298 Ga. App. 713, 716 (4) ( 680 SE2d 690) (2009). Litman also complains that the trial court was not entitled to limit the number of cars he could leave in his backyard.