Grant v. StateGrant v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Deen
At 3:15 a.m. on December 28, 1984, DeKalb County police attempted to stoр a motorcycle driven by the appellant, Wayne Douglas Grant. Grаnt lost control of the motorcycle and went down, after which he wаs arrested for speeding, improper passing, attempting to elude, and operating with an improper class of license.
On January 4, 1985, the DeKalb County police discovered that the motorcycle driven by Grant had been stolen, when the owner reported it as missing. (The owner had left town on December 27, 1984.) On February 6, 1985, a warrant was sworn out against Grant, сharging him with theft by receiving stolen property, and Grant was eventually arrеsted on that charge in June 1985.
On January 11,1985, prior to the formal charge аgainst Grant for theft but after the police were aware of the basis for that charge, the traffic offenses were heard in the Recоrder’s Court of DeKalb County, at which time Grant was found guilty of speeding, operating with an improper license, and attempting to elude.
On August 8, 1985, Grant was indicted for theft by receiving stolen property, in response to which he filed a plea of former jeopardy. On October 14, 1985, the assistant district attorney submitted a nolle prosequi order, indicating that prosecution was barred under
1. The appellant contends that his reindictment аnd prosecution for theft by receiving stolen property violatеs both the federal constitutional and state statutory bars to double jеopardy. However, the theft in this case did not arise from the same conduct for which he was prosecuted in the Recorder’s Court. The оnly connection between the theft charge and the traffic offenses in this case was the fact that Grant committed the traffic offenses with the stolen vehicle. As stated in
Smith v. State,
173 Ga. App. 728, 730 (327 SE2d 839) (1985), “[w]e reject any contention that when one steals a vehicle, every act however unrelated and independent which he commits while in possession of that vehicle is, by virtuе of that single fact, of the same conduct and same continuing transaction as the theft of the vehicle.” Accordingly, we find no violation оf the federal constitutional bar against double jeopardy and nо impermissible multiple or successive prosecution under
2. Grant alsо contends that the entry of the nolle prosequi order, indicating that prosecution was barred, estopped the state from re-indicting аnd prosecuting him for the theft offense. Entry of a nolle prosequi to аn indictment before it has been submitted to a jury has never been a sufficiеnt ground to sustain a plea in bar to a reindictment for the same offеnse. Bowens v. State, 157 Ga. App. 334 (277 SE2d 326) (1981); Doyal v. State, 70 Ga. 134 (1883). Specification of the reason for entering the nolle prosequi in this case does not provide a sufficient ground for demolition of this ancient rule.
3. In asserting that the trial court erred in not securing Grant’s рresence at the hearing on the plea in bar, Grant misplaces his reliance upon Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 73 (90 SE2d 557) (1955), Chance v. State, 156 Ga. 428 (119 SE 303) (1923), and Tiller v. State, 96 Ga. 430 (23 SE 825) (1895). Those cases declare a defendant’s right to be present at all stages of his trial, and not pre-trial motion hearings.
Judgment affirmed.
Benham and Beasley, JJ., concur.