From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 30, 1991
411 S.E.2d 118 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

A91A1520.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1991.

Drug violation. Brooks Superior Court. Before Judge Horkan.

Augustus B. Jones III, for appellant.

H. Lamar Cole, District Attorney, Bradfield M. Shealy, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.


Dewight Williams was convicted by a jury of one count of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act by possession of cocaine and sentenced to serve eight years in prison. On appeal he contends that the trial court's failure to require the prosecutor to declare ready or not ready for trial as directed by OCGA § 17-7-172, operated to deny him due process of law by depriving him of the opportunity to change his plea from not guilty to guilty. Held:

The record reveals that Williams was arraigned on March 11, 1991, and his appointed counsel entered a plea of not guilty. The case was called for trial in Brooks County on April 22, 1991, at which time defense counsel announced that Williams was not present because he was purported to be in jail in Valdosta. A bench warrant was issued and Williams was subsequently arrested and brought for trial in Brooks County Superior Court on April 25, 1991. Defense counsel argues in his brief that Williams expressed a desire to enter a plea of guilty to the charge after he was incarcerated on the bench warrant, and that counsel intended to make this announcement on his behalf as soon as court opened on April 25, even though no prior announcement had been made by the State. Whatever his intentions, however, there is no indication in the record that counsel objected to any alleged statutory violation or raised this issue in the court below.

"`"Where appellant asserts error and no objection is made at the trial it cannot be made the basis of appellate review, either as a ground of a motion for new trial, or as a ground of enumerated error on direct appeal." (Cit.) Appellate courts review enumerations for correction of errors of law committed by the trial court — where motions or objections are properly presented for a ruling by the trial court. (Cit.) Enumerated errors which raise issues for the first time in a motion for new trial or on appeal present nothing for review. (Cit.)' [Cits.]" Holland v. State, 197 Ga. App. 496, 497 (1) ( 398 S.E.2d 810). At bottom, the complaint here seems to stem from appellant's perception that he was prejudiced by the denial of his alleged right to plead guilty (but see Harris v. State, 175 Ga. App. 134, 135 ( 332 S.E.2d 685)), because he speculates that he might have received a more lenient sentence. This is a question which might be addressed to the appropriate sentence review panel. See Gordon v. State, 190 Ga. App. 414 (1) ( 379 S.E.2d 221).

Judgment affirmed. Pope and Cooper, JJ., concur.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1991.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 30, 1991
411 S.E.2d 118 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAMS v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Sep 30, 1991

Citations

411 S.E.2d 118 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)
411 S.E.2d 118

Citing Cases

Tibbs v. State

Accordingly, the court did not err in admitting evidence of the intoximeter test results. 4. Tibbs argues…

Minton v. State

" (Punctuation and citations omitted.) Williams v. State, 201 Ga. App. 383, 384 ( 411 S.E.2d 118) (1991).…