Davis v. StateDavis v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- McMurray
Defendant was tried before a jury and convicted of robbery and theft by taking on December 11, 1996. On March 20, 1997, defendant, acting pro se, filed a document entitled, “MOTION FOR OUT OF TIME APPEAL AND/OR EXTRAORDINARY MOTION FOR NEW *826 TRIAL.” Defendant pertinently alleges in this motion that his trial attorney was ineffective because he did not file a timely notice of appeal from defendant’s judgment of conviction and sentence.
Appellate counsel, representing himself as the Pulaski County public defender, entered an appearance for defendant on December 16, 1997, declaring that he was appointed to represent defendant “in his Motion for New Trial. . . .” On January 26, 1998, the trial court entered an order denying defendant’s motion for out-of-time appeal and/or extraordinary motion for new trial, finding that defendant was advised of his appeal rights and that “defendant elected to discharge [his trial attorney], rather than have him file a motion for new trial or an appeal.”
On February 11, 1998, defendant filed a notice of appeal designating that he “does hereby appeal. . . from the judgment and sentence entered on December 11, 1996. . . .” Defendant later filed an enumeration of error and brief in the Court of Appeals of Georgia, contending the evidence adduced at trial does not support his conviction. Defendant also enumerates ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his trial attorney did not call any witness to corroborate defendant’s trial testimony and that his trial attorney did not attempt to impeach or diminish the credibility of the State’s witnesses. Defendant did not enumerate error relating to the trial court’s denial of his motion for out-of-time appeal and/or extraordinary motion for new trial. Held‘.
Under
Since an attorney other than defendant’s trial attorney was appointed to represent defendant before the hearing on defendant’s motion for out-of-time appeal and/or extraordinary motion for new trial, it appears unnecessary for this Court to follow the Supreme Court’s directives in Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 874 (2) (452 SE2d 756).
Appeal dismissed.
Blackburn and Eldridge, JJ, concur.