*1 actually point drug participate in the transaction at that did not materially testimony and favor- Thus, not have would witness it. their arranged ably sale scene to the came the facts that affected guilty Burroughs possession traf- for cocaine sufficient possession King guilty ficking of cocaine. be and for to in cocaine testimony (a); words, In their §§ OCGA 16-13-31 16-13-30. appellants’ materially defenses affected would not have charges. Id. appellants’ confrontation Federal Constitutional to com- trial court’s refusal were not violated due
pel identities. disclosure of arrestees’/informers’ Birdsong, Judgments Banke, concur. affirmed. appellants. Raffauf,
J. M. Robert Attorney, Pryles, M. Wilson, E. Eleni A. Robert Coker, Assistant District M. B. O.
77620. the Interest Carley, Chief delinquency, hearing motion Prior to a to determine brings Appellant juvenile proceedings was filed. to dismiss juvenile denial his motion to this direct court’s dismiss. mo- issue resolution is whether denial The initial delinquency proceedings is
tion to dismiss the recog- explicitly There is no nizes interlocutory upon or decisional jurisdiction an from such hear a direct this court’s to solely Appellant his dismiss based motion to alleged to with the time failure (a). Compare Ould v. OCGA 15-11-26 392) (1988) (motion upon proceedings based to dismiss criminal trial). urging right that this denial constitutional appellant analogizes appeal, hear his court has direct to the denial of motion dismiss denial his motion predicated OCGA 17-7-170. is di-
It is true that the denial of an OCGA 17-7-170 (b) provides, rectly provision in rele- of that Subsection part, person not tried when the demand vant “If the follows: regular succeeding thereafter, ... he court term made or at the next acquitted charged absolutely discharged of the offense shall Thus, in Smith indictment or accusation.” 375) (1983), it was held directly appeala- of OCGA 17-7-170motion was denial ruling ble court’s refusal because such a “does not constitute the trial thereby grant original terminate the accused prosecution. Rather, [cit.] the denial of OCGA 17-7-170 *2 prosecution constitutes the that has trial court’s determination the already acquittal oper- not resulted in automatic of the accused Therefore, of § ation law. the to the extent that denial of an OCGA prosecution proceed, adju- 17-7-170 [cit.] allows the it is an impending place that the in dication trial of the accused will not him jeopardy previously for the commission of a crime for which he has acquitted.” (Emphasis original.) Supreme been quently Court subse- reasoning. supra, analogy Smith, be-
endorsed this “In jeopardy § tween double trial of OCGA correctly and, State, 17-7-170 was drawn we think so.” Hubbard (333 § 17-7-170, however, stark contrast to OCGA there is ex- no failure plicit language § in OCGA 15-11-26which that the mandates statutory with the time limits therein will result adjudication juvenile’s non-delinquency by operation in an law. In the statutory language,
absence such it follows that “the [ju- denial of § [15-11-26] an OCGA [does constitute] the [delinquency proceedings venile] court’s have] determination that the already [juvenile] opera- resulted in an automatic Therefore, tion of law. extent that the denial of an OCGA proceed, [delinquency proceedings] [15-11-26]motion allows it adjudication impending [delinquency [not] hearing] place juvenile] jeopardy . . [the . [delin- for the commission a quent previously acquitted.” act] for which he has Smith v. (1). supra (Emphasis original.) State, at 252 Thus, rather than supra, supra, authority Hubbard, controlling Smith, present 688) State, case is Austin v. 179 Ga. (1986), wherein the direct from the denial a bar was prior adjudication dismissed because “there has been no favorable by operation , ... law otherwise.” jurisdictional require- It function to establish the appealability appellate ments of cases. The courts have here- given finality requirement tofore due consideration to the which oth- appealability. erwise serves as a limitation on direct Neither supra, supra, Hubbard, proposition Smith, for the any directly that the denial of and all motions to dismiss would be appealability interlocutory The direct orders remains recog previously exception the rule. that has been rather than the nized ap appealability ‘is of direct “that ‘a broader construction’ denying propriate a from is one where the order ” jeopardy[,]’ mo of an OCGA 17-7-170 and that the denial double (1). supra However, Smith v. at 251 tion is such can discussed, an OCGA 15-11-26motion the denial of the reasons analogized “Be an OCGA 17-7-170 motion. to the denial of not be im issue is one for which certificate we conclude that this cause interlocutory required, petition appeal were mediate review question in [Cits.] . . dismissed. This is not . must be volving speedy 17-7-170, would be under OCGA trial ” Miller v. [Cit.] (1986). spe-
Appeal Deen, concurs concurs. dismissed. cially. specially. Judge, concurring Presiding
Deen, prospective appellant walking egg This case is illustrative of spa- through winding passageway of a shells or minefields ghetti junction, identify the narrow seriously striving and to select and while discretionary, interlocutory, proper pathway of either an statutory requirements appeal. Acknowledging or a direct conditions are published opinions, *3 precedent selecting appropriate appellate jurisdictional, published reports, well as un- the fact that our liberally corpses cases littered with the speedily penalty out, carried where the death of dismissal has been pitfalls, dangers difficulties, to ma- confirms the and of one’s Scylla path hand, neuver around the “narrow between the one Charybdis” Brogdon McMillan, . . . v. 116 Ga. on the other. 828) (1967). technicality App. single appellate If one forty-nine area, and hurdle is and overcome in this avoided appear ap- snag effort to damnations sometime seem to peal. “Forty-nine damnations; sure if another fails.” distinct one 7) (1974). Hawk, 626, Coolik v. Legislative
This much at least seems to obtain. directions strict, serious, and sound as to exacting compliance. must receive scrutiny directions, contrast, court our may appellants, hand, rules, on the other court orders directed to mostly cavalierly, many totally ignored lightly, be taken without travagantly indulged. times or any type enlisted and ex- of sanction. Endless extensions are pursuant sending docketing notice, out its appellant rule, instructs, file directs, court our court or orders many twenty days. On occa- brief and enumeration of errors within sions this time limit is ignored. time is re- an extension of Often quested always time additional and almost granting an extension. If the latter order an extension deadline court ignored by appellant, impose is also of Once court still does not sanctions contempt appeal until further or dismiss the action court.
again, providing another an extension the court issues still order days five additional to file before we indicate the case theoreti- cally noncompliance. if there If the case is a civil dismissed by subsequent only case, court, order, another court then and although then, case, case. If the criminal dismisses the all designated ignored, generally time limits have we nevertheless always subsequently Rarely, all consider the merits of the if case. repeated contempt ever, are threatened sanctions of dismissal and contempt hearings considered, are involved. held, whether civil or criminal cases orders, direction,
Our court contrast to may rightfully appear tiger” as “a toothless and a “fish cannot swim.” Tanner Seemingly, equal scrutiny the same fairness of either strict to- appeals type ward all by obtain, should or a similar of liberal treatment litigants rendering the court toward all on the decision merits every sought goal. case should be our spoon. might require statutory should be fed out the same This changes allowing issuing or court-rule modifications court orders permitting perfecting out-of-time of an an amendment re- lating back, secured from time, mechanics, the trial court. At this jurisdictional rule, whether rections or of out-of-time cor- perfecting appeal by relating of an amendments back do respectfully judg- not exist. observations, With these I concur majority opinion ment in the instant case. Billy Spruell, appellant. L. for District Attorney, George Slaton, Lewis R. Robinson, Jr., J. Jo-
seph Drolet, J. Hicks, Richard E. Assistant *4 77930. GOLDEN v. THE STATE. pled guilty charges Andre Alexis Golden on December 1987to robbery robbery negotiated
of sentence stead force and armed arrangement. He did move to withdraw his in- but appeals directly judgment plea. entered on that