Opinion
A91A1994.
DECIDED NOVEMBER 21, 1991. RECONSIDERATION DENIED DECEMBER 3, 1991.
Motion for new trial. Clayton State Court. Before Judge Carbo.
James S. Wilson, pro se. Keith C. Martin, Solicitor, Jackie N. Stanton, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of failing to stop before making a right turn at a traffic signal. The trial court sentenced defendant to 12 months in confinement and payment of a fine of $150 and costs of $75. It provided, however, that the 12 months sentence would be suspended upon the payment of the fine and costs.
Defendant paid the full amount of the fine and costs on the day sentence was imposed. Thereafter, defendant moved for a new trial. The new trial motion was denied and defendant appeals. Held:
"`Although a court may exercise its discretion to decide a criminal case even after the sentence has been served ((cits.)), it is not bound to do so. (Cits.)' Baker v. State, 240 Ga. 431, 432 ( 241 S.E.2d 187) (1978). Here, as in Baker v. State, supra at 432, if there are any `adverse collateral consequences' resulting from [defendant's] misdemeanor conviction, [he] `has not shown, on this record,' their existence. Compare Parris v. State, 232 Ga. 687 ( 208 S.E.2d 493) (1974); Peach v. State, 168 Ga. App. 55 ( 308 S.E.2d 60) (1983). Likewise, any `question raised (in the instant case) is not one which can never be decided because it inevitably becomes moot prior to an appeal....' Baker v. State, supra at 432. This is true because [defendant] was not required to pay the fine so as to avoid the immediate commencement of the [12 months] sentence. `At no time, either before a court of inquiry, when indicted, after a motion for a new trial is made, or while an appeal is pending, shall any person charged with a misdemeanor be refused bail.' OCGA § 17-6-1 (a). `"(O)ne convicted (of a misdemeanor) is entitled to bail as a matter of law. (Cits.)"' Holcomb v. State, 129 Ga. App. 86 ( 198 S.E.2d 876) (1973). Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence of `adverse collateral consequences' or of `inevitable mootness,' `(w)e decline (to exercise our discretion) to reach the merits of this appeal....' Baker v. State, supra at 432. See also Henry v. State, 148 Ga. App. 712 ( 252 S.E.2d 179) (1979). Compare Chaplin v. State, 141 Ga. App. 788 ( 234 S.E.2d 330) (1977)." Gamble v. State, 181 Ga. App. 871 ( 354 S.E.2d 174).
Appeal dismissed. Sognier, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.