State v. Hart

23 Citing cases

  1. Johnson v. State

    302 Ga. 188 (Ga. 2017)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that process for reconstructing missing trial transcript was insufficient to create a complete transcript and thus concluding that defendant was entitled to a new trial

    The defendant has the responsibility to ask for the transcript when he needs it. See OCGA § 5-6-42 (“Where there is a transcript of evidence and proceedings to be included in the record on appeal, the appellant shall cause the transcript to be prepared and filed as provided by Code Section 5-6-41[.]”); State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212 , 212-213 (271 SE2d 133 ) (1980). Once the State has satisfied its obligation under OCGA §§ 17-8-5 (a) and 5-6-41 (a) by providing a verbatim transcript, if the defendant believes the transcript omits or misrepresents a necessary part of the proceeding, he has the responsibility to seek to correct the transcript in that respect.

  2. Glass v. State

    289 Ga. 542 (Ga. 2011)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s convictions for murder and other offenses, in part because "the placement of [the defendant’s] picture around the community with an alert to be on the lookout" affected only the weight and credibility of the eyewitness testimony

    [Cit.]" State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212, 213 (1) ( 271 SE2d 133) (1980). "Pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-41 (d), preliminary motions would be included in the proceedings subject to OCGA § 17-8-5 (a).

  3. Chancey v. State

    256 Ga. 415 (Ga. 1986)   Cited 126 times
    Holding that the appellants complaining of a "fortress-like atmosphere" due to law enforcement presence in the courtroom failed to show that the security measures adopted were unreasonable

    Where the appealing party is the defendant in a felony case, and where the defendant states in his notice of appeal that a transcript is to be transmitted as part of the appellate record, it is the defendant's statutorily mandated duty to cause the court reporter to prepare and file an original and one copy of the transcript with the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the filing of the notice of appeal unless an extension of time is obtained. State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212 ( 271 S.E.2d 133) (1980). Here, appellant Jordan obtained an indefinite extension of time for the filing of the transcript, and the transcript was not prepared by the court reporter until approximately three years and four months after completion of the trial.

  4. Montgomery v. Tremblay

    292 S.E.2d 64 (Ga. 1982)   Cited 4 times

    Wade v. State, 231 Ga. 131 ( 200 S.E.2d 271) (1973). However, in State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212 ( 271 S.E.2d 133) (1980), we held that although the law in this regard is mandatory, there is no time limit on the state in fulfilling this duty. Since at present there is no time limit or statute of limitations on the filing of a habeas corpus petition, we cannot find that the defendant is barred from requesting his transcript by lapse of time.

  5. Brock v. State

    353 Ga. App. 899 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)

    Furthermore, as the State failed to ensure that the trial transcript was prepared, despite Brock’s requests, we vacate the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial and remand the case to allow Brock to file an amended motion for new trial with the aid of a trial transcript. This case differs from those cited by the State, such as State v. Hart , 246 Ga. 212, 271 S.E.2d 133 (1980), because here the trial court did not make an express finding that Brock had caused an unreasonable delay in requesting the trial transcript. See id. at 214 (2), 271 S.E.2d 133.

  6. In re Western

    342 Ga. App. 484 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    OCGA § 5-6-42 places the burden upon the appellant, not the lower court clerk, to cause transcripts to be prepared and filed. See, e.g., State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212 , 213 (1) (271 SE2d 133 ) (1980). 3. We cannot consider the claims raised in connection with C. W.’s adjudication of delinquency on August 20, 2014, as a notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days.

  7. Smith v. Simpson

    497 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    Their counsel was charged with knowledge that they bore the responsibility for timely arranging for a transcript. See Leonard v. Ognio, 201 Ga. App. 260, 262 ( 410 S.E.2d 814) (1991); see also State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212, 213 (1) ( 271 S.E.2d 133) (1980); OCGA § 5-6-42. Appellants offered no evidence justifying their failure to order the transcript.

  8. Whitt v. State

    215 Ga. App. 704 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 13 times

    (Cit.)' State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212, 213 ( 271 S.E.2d 133) (1980). Pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-41 (d), preliminary motions [and all other proceedings which may be called into question on appeal] would be included in the proceedings subject to OCGA § 17-8-5 (a).

  9. Mapp v. State

    204 Ga. App. 647 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 15 times

    It is the duty of the judge to direct the recordation of the trial proceedings in felony cases. OCGA § 17-8-5; State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212 ( 271 S.E.2d 133). But where the transcript does not fully disclose what transpired at trial, it is the duty of the complaining party to have the record completed pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-41.

  10. Ivory v. State

    199 Ga. App. 283 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 14 times

    [Cit.]" State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212, 213 ( 271 S.E.2d 133) (1980). Pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-41 (d), preliminary motions would be included in the proceedings subject to OCGA § 17-8-5 (a).