Thomas v. State

1 Citing case

  1. Logan v. State

    899 S.E.2d 505 (Ga. Ct. App. 2024)

    Thus, this scenario simply does not present the danger that the concept of double jeopardy was designed to protect against, and the trial court did not err by denying Logan’s plea in bar on this basis. See generally Johnson, 361 Ga. App. at 49-51 (2), 861 S.E.2d 660; Thomas v. State, 356 Ga. App. 817, 819-820, 847 S.E.2d 662 (2020); see also Zant v. Redd, 249 Ga. 211, 213-214 (2), 290 S.E.2d 36 (1982). (b) Logan asserts that the trial court also erred by denying his plea in bar premised on the statute of limitations.