The State v. Hill, 333 Ga. App. 785

Feb 2, 2013: Hill was in an automobile collision and cited for DUI, following too closely, and an expired tag in Chatham County.
Recorder’s Court assigned a case report number (CRN) to the DUI and following-too-closely charges but failed to assign a CRN to the expired-tag citation, so the expired-tag charge remained on the recorder’s court traffic docket and was not flagged as related.
Oct 25–Dec 26, 2013: DUI and following-too-closely charges were bound over and Hill was indicted in State Court, with the expired-tag also listed in the state-court accusation, but the recorder’s court still showed the expired-tag pending and no record that the district attorney had transferred it.
June 17, 2014: Hill pleaded guilty to the expired-tag charge in recorder’s court; recorder’s court traffic docket typically proceeds without a district attorney’s involvement or notice to the DA.
Aug 6, 2014: Hill filed a plea in bar in state court asserting procedural double jeopardy under OCGA § 16-1-7(b); the trial court granted the plea, concluding the DA had actual knowledge of the expired-tag charge because it appeared in the state-court accusation.
The State appealed, arguing Hill failed to prove that the proper prosecuting officer in recorder’s court had actual knowledge of all related charges when Hill pled guilty there.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a later state-court prosecutor’s knowledge can satisfy the OCGA § 16-1-7(b) "proper prosecuting officer" knowledge requirement to bar a subsequent prosecution after a guilty plea in recorder’s court	Hill: The district attorney’s office knew of the expired-tag charge (it appeared in the accusation), so the State should have prosecuted all related charges together; plea in bar bars the later prosecution	State: The critical inquiry is the prosecuting officer who handled the first proceeding (recorder’s court); Hill failed to show any prosecuting officer in recorder’s court had actual knowledge of all charges when he pled guilty	Court reversed trial court: Knowledge of the prosecutor in the later state-court proceeding does not satisfy the statute; Hill failed to show actual knowledge by the prosecuting officer who handled the recorder’s-court plea, so procedural double jeopardy does not bar the state-court prosecution

State v. Pruiett, 324 Ga. App. 789 (affirming standard of review for double jeopardy plea) (appellate de novo review where facts uncontroverted)
Dean v. State, 309 Ga. App. 459 (holding knowledge relevant is that of prosecutor who handled the first plea)
Nicely v. State, 305 Ga. App. 387 (describing the three-prong test under OCGA § 16-1-7 and burden to show prosecuting officer's actual knowledge)
State v. Smith, 259 Ga. (Ga. 1989) (prosecution by same DA on both charges can make DA the proper prosecuting officer whose knowledge bars separate prosecutions)
Chandler v. State, 305 Ga. App. 526 (noting a traffic-docket disposition without prosecutor intervention does not establish prosecutorial knowledge)
Sellers v. State, 332 Ga. App. 14 (clarifying focus on prosecutor who handled initial plea)