holding that a defendant was denied his right to appeal and was thus entitled to a-new trial where the State was unable to file a transcript because notes from which the transcript was to be prepared had been destroyed
How later courts described this case
- holding that a defendant was denied his right to appeal and was thus entitled to a-new trial where the State was unable to file a transcript because notes from which the transcript was to be prepared had been destroyed
- new trial warranted where transcript could not be filed due to the loss of stenographic notes
- holding sentences invalid because they did not follow the jury’s verdict and sentence
- “[I]t is the duty of the state to file the transcript after a guilty verdict has been returned in a felony case.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Thomas v. Hopper, 232 Ga. 409 (1974)
The court concluded that Wade was inapplicable to Thomas’ sentences.
The opinion
Undercofler, Justice,
concurring in the judgment only. I respectfully dissent from Divisions II and III of the majority opinion. The power of the court to specify sentences shall run consecutively is derived from the common law. Georgia statutes have not altered this power. The only change is that sentences now run concurrently, rather than consecutively, when it is not specified otherwise. 21 AmJur2d 523, Criminal Law, § 547; Simmons v. Georgia Iron & Co., 117 Ga. 305, 318 ( 43 SE 780 ); Baker v. State, 127 Ga. App, 403 (5) ( 194 SE2d 122 ).
I am authorized to state that Justice Nichols concurs in this special concurrence.