Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

262 Ga. 697

425 S.E.2d 653

Bohannon v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 5, 1993

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1993-02-05

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t]he judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed because the record shows that the trial court granted an out-of-time appeal and, consequently, this case is not subject to the rules governing extraordinary motions for new trial; that is, no application for appeal was required. We disagree with the Court of Appeals that by seeking (and obtaining) permission to file an out-of-time motion for new trial rather than an out-of-time appeal, Bohannon was necessarily pursuing an extraordinary motion for new trial.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 227 Ga. App. 327 - Balkcom v. State

Relies on 203 Ga. App. 783 - Bohannon v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-02-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently August 2023

14 state decisions

801993200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hunt, Presiding Justice.

¶1 We granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Bohannon v. State, 203 Ga. App. 783 (417 SE2d 679) (1992). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed because the record shows that the trial court granted an out-of-time appeal and, consequently, this case is not subject to the rules governing extraordinary motions for new trial; that is, no application for appeal was required. We disagree with the Court of Appeals that by seeking (and obtaining) permission to file an out-of-time motion for new trial rather than an out-of-time appeal, Bohannon was necessarily pursuing an extraordinary motion for new trial. Likewise, we attach no significance to the fact that the trial court’s permission was oral, not written, since that court in fact heard and denied the motion on its merits. Therefore, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for a decision on the merits.

¶2 Judgment reversed and remanded.

Clarke, C. J., Benham, Fletcher, Sears-Collins and Hunstein, JJ., concur. *698 David McDade, District Attorney, for appellee.
/262/ga/697 · .json · Public domain