Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/138860671/The-State-vs-Hill
Timestamp: 2016-07-27 11:27:17
Document Index: 760165229

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 16', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 9', '§ 1', '§ 5', '§ 5']

UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreSECOND DIVISION BARNES, P. J., MILLER and RAY, JJ.NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. (Court of Appeals Rule 4 (b) and Rule 37 (b), February 21, 2008) http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/
A13A0610. THE STATE v. HILL. RAY, Judge. The State of Georgia appeals from a trial court order granting Victor Keith Hill’s general demurrer and dismissing 5 counts of a 37-count indictment against him. The State asserts two enumerations of error: (1) that the trial court erred in finding that because Hill, the sheriff of Clayton County, had a superior ownership interest in his campaign re-election account, that he could not be charged with theft by taking as to his own property; and (2) that the trial court erred in finding that the State was pre-empted from prosecuting Hill for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) because the indictment failed to charge the proper predicate offenses pursuant to OCGA § 16-14-3 (9) (A) and (B). Because we lack jurisdiction, we are unable to reach the merits of this case.
Well-settled law dictates that “[i]t is incumbent upon this Court to inquire into its own jurisdiction.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Mays v. Rancine-Kinchen, 291 Ga. 283, 283 (729 SE2d 321) (2012). Here, the State filed a notice of direct appeal from the trial court’s order. Hill argues that the trial court should have dismissed the State’s notice of appeal because the dismissal of only a portion of an indictment is an interlocutory order from which no direct appeal lies. In support of his argument, Hill cites State v. Outen, 289 Ga. 579 (714 SE2d 581) (2011), which provides that a trial court’s order dismissing fewer than all counts of an indictment is not a final order; thus, a certificate of immediate review was required for an appeal pursuant to the version of OCGA § 5-7-2 (a) then in effect. Id. at 581. The State counters that Outen effectively has been overruled by a 2012 amendment to OCGA § 5-7-2 (b) (2). That amendment provides that the State need not obtain a certificate of immediate review to appeal an order described in OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (1), which includes orders “setting aside or dismissing any indictment . . . or any count thereof.” (Emphasis supplied.) The trial court agreed with the State and refused to dismiss the State’s notice of appeal.1
Hill filed an application for interlocutory appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss the State’s notice of appeal in the trial court. We denied that application. 2
Hill allegedly committed the crimes at issue between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2011; he was indicted on January 18, 2012. The amendment to OCGA § 5-7-2 became effective July 1, 2012. Therefore, the determinative jurisdictional question is whether the amendment applies retroactively. It is well settled that [a] statutory amendment may be applied retroactively if the changes do not affect constitutional or substantive rights and if the legislature did not express a contrary intention. Substantive law is that law which creates rights, duties, and obligations. . . . Procedural law is that law which prescribes the methods of enforcement of rights, duties and obligations. (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Williams v. State, 297 Ga. App. 626, 627 (677 SE2d 773) (2009). Here, the amended OCGA § 5-7-2 does not, on its face, address whether its procedural aspects are to apply retroactively. “[I]n attempting to ascertain legislative intent of a doubtful statute, a court may look to the caption of the act and its legislative history.” (Citation omitted.) Fulton County v. Colon, 316 Ga. App. 883, 887 (2) (730 SE2d 599) (2012). Further, it is well settled that the cardinal rule of statutory construction is to discern the intent of the legislature, and if the legislative
intent is clear and expressed unambiguously, no interpretation is needed prior to a court executing its duty to enforce the statute. Daugherty v. Norville Indus., Inc., 174 Ga. App. 89, 90 (329 SE2d 202) (1985). Here, the legislature plainly and unambiguously expressed its intent in the relevant legislative history, which provides in pertinent part, “this Act shall become effective on July 1, 2012, and shall apply to offenses which occur on or after that date. Any offense occurring before July 1, 2012, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such offense.” (Emphasis supplied.) Ga. L. 2012, Act 709/HB 1176, Part IX, § 9-1 (a). See also id. at Part I, §§ 1-1, 1-2. “Where a statute governs only court procedure . . . it is to be given retroactive effect absent an expressed contrary intention.” (Footnote omitted; emphasis supplied.) Williams, supra. Here, the legislature expressed such a contrary intention as to the effective date of the statute as a whole. Thus, the version of OCGA § 5-7-2 in effect at the time the offenses were committed applies. “The State having failed to obtain a certificate of immediate review pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-2, the attempted appeal is nugatory and does not activate the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) State v. Ware, 282 Ga. 676, 678 (653 SE2d 21) (2007). Appeal dismissed. Barnes, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.
More From This UserCity of College Park v. Fulton County Et Al.Johnson et al v. City of AtlantaAtlanta Cascade AnnexationsSFX Entertainment Bankruptcy Filing (16-10260-MFW)South Fulton Mandatory Annexation PlanAtlanta v APS RulingSouth Oaks Service Delivery PlanCity of Atlanta v. Fulton CountyRashad Richey Police ReportsRashad Richey DUI/Hit & Run Case FilesCelebScene/Paulding County ContractCurtis v Celeb Scene, IncProposed ATL Annexation of Loch Lomond and SandtownFederal and Georgia RFRA ComparisonHouse Bill 514 Committee SubstituteProposed College Park Annexation MapEast Point Draft Letter Opposing City of South FultonSen. Fort Letter to East Point on New South Fulton CityChattahoochee Hills Annexation MemoInniss et al. v. AderholdLiens against Fulton Commissioner Bill EdwardsGeorgia Medicaid Polling ResultsGMA Annexation Fact Sheet & Sample PetitionsHouse Bill 704 Committee Substitute2008 Democratic National Convention Summary of Preliminary Requirements
The State vs. Hill by Andre Walker6.3K viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionThe Georgia Court of Appeals Opinion refusing to reinstate five dismissed charges against Clayton County Sheriff Victor Hill.The Georgia Court of Appeals Opinion refusing to reinstate five dismissed charges against Clayton County Sheriff Victor Hill.Categories: Types, Government & PoliticsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedUnited States v. Fred Ashley Buckley, 36 F.3d 1106, 10th Cir. (1994)by Scribd Government DocsFulton County Memo of Understanding Admitting Open Meetings Violationby Andre WalkerTRAN CASE2-10577by Iboe FraudGeorgia Supreme Court Order reprimanding state Democratic Party chairman Mike Berlonby Andre WalkerFoster v. Kansas Ex Rel. Johnston, 112 U.S. 201 (1884)by Scribd Government DocsBurnett v. City of Inman - Document No. 4by Justia.comUnited States v. E.W. Freeman, 813 F.2d 303, 10th Cir. (1987)by Scribd Government DocsMarquez v. USA - Document No. 2by Justia.comUnited States v. Cesspooch, 10th Cir. (2002)by Scribd Government DocsMOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY by Roy WardenUnited States v. Alan Neal Scott, 664 F.2d 264, 11th Cir. (1981)by Scribd Government DocsNelson v. Moloney, 174 U.S. 164 (1899)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Maldonado-Ortega, 10th Cir. (2012)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Christopher Richardson, 8 F.3d 769, 11th Cir. (1993)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Stephen Thomas Freeman, 412 F.2d 1180, 10th Cir. (1969)by Scribd Government DocsGary Steven Vasiloff v. United States, 11th Cir. (2015)by Scribd Government DocsRTC and MTC Jurisby silverbow11Sinisterra v. United States of America - Document No. 2by Justia.comKitzhaber Motion to Certify Appeal to Supreme Courtby Statesman JournalUSDC - Dkt 8 - State Bar's Motion to Dismiss Complaint - Fine v State Bar II 10-CV-0048by Honor in JusticeUnited States v. Nixon, 235 U.S. 231 (1914)by Scribd Government DocsDecker v. Roberts, 10th Cir. (2013)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Cantril, 8 U.S. 167 (1807)by Scribd Government DocsCokley v. Emery, 10th Cir. (1996)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Annie E. Hollis, 72 F.3d 139, 10th Cir. (1995)by Scribd Government Docs00212-0499by legalmattersDAVIS v. STATE OF FLORIDA - Document No. 7by Justia.comUnited States v. Van Auken, 96 U.S. 366 (1878)by Scribd Government DocsSimilar to The State vs. HillUnited States v. Fred Ashley Buckley, 36 F.3d 1106, 10th Cir. (1994)Fulton County Memo of Understanding Admitting Open Meetings ViolationTRAN CASE2-10577Georgia Supreme Court Order reprimanding state Democratic Party chairman Mike BerlonFoster v. Kansas Ex Rel. Johnston, 112 U.S. 201 (1884)Burnett v. City of Inman - Document No. 4United States v. E.W. Freeman, 813 F.2d 303, 10th Cir. (1987)Marquez v. USA - Document No. 2United States v. Cesspooch, 10th Cir. (2002)MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY United States v. Alan Neal Scott, 664 F.2d 264, 11th Cir. (1981)Nelson v. Moloney, 174 U.S. 164 (1899)United States v. Maldonado-Ortega, 10th Cir. (2012)United States v. Christopher Richardson, 8 F.3d 769, 11th Cir. (1993)United States v. Stephen Thomas Freeman, 412 F.2d 1180, 10th Cir. (1969)Gary Steven Vasiloff v. United States, 11th Cir. (2015)RTC and MTC JurisSinisterra v. United States of America - Document No. 2Kitzhaber Motion to Certify Appeal to Supreme CourtUSDC - Dkt 8 - State Bar's Motion to Dismiss Complaint - Fine v State Bar II 10-CV-0048United States v. Nixon, 235 U.S. 231 (1914)Decker v. Roberts, 10th Cir. (2013)United States v. Cantril, 8 U.S. 167 (1807)Cokley v. Emery, 10th Cir. (1996)United States v. Annie E. Hollis, 72 F.3d 139, 10th Cir. (1995)00212-0499DAVIS v. STATE OF FLORIDA - Document No. 7United States v. Van Auken, 96 U.S. 366 (1878)Answer ReconsiderationJudge OKs release of Jan. 8 investigation