Court Opinion

ID: 9569112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:10:42.141174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:49:01.167266
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully concur in Division 1 but would not reach the issues sought to be raised in the pro se documents and would affirm the judgment.
Defendant is represented on appeal by counsel appointed on July 17 after trial counsel was permitted to withdraw following defendant’s sentencing on June 30. No motion for new trial was filed by either counsel. The sole issue raised on appeal by counsel is ruled on in Division 1.
Since July 1, 1983, the effective date of the current state constitution, persons no longer have a right to represent themselves and be represented by an attorney. Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XII. Defendant’s two documents, therefore, should not be taken as properly presenting issues for review. He may have misunderstood counsel’s instructions to him, when an Anders motion was filed, to the effect that if the motion was granted defendant could raise any points he wished. However, the Anders motion was denied.
In view of the constitutional change and the practical problems *475attendant to allowing two separate representatives of one party, we should not begin the practice of permitting criminal defendants to file briefs and raise issues as well as be represented by counsel who are appointed or retained to do so for them. See in this regard Smith v. State, 186 Ga. App. 303 (367 SE2d 573) (1988); Taylor v. State, 186 Ga. App. 113 (366 SE2d 422) (1988), Beasley, J., dissenting.
Decided March 18, 1988.
Keith F. Allen, for appellant.
H. Lamar Cole, District Attorney, J. David Miller, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen, Presiding Judge Banke, and Judge Carley join in this opinion.