Court Opinion

ID: 9586721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:14:16.704161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:48.563284
License: Public Domain

Banke, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I concur fully with Presiding Judge Deen’s dissent. This case is distinguished from Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U. S. 387 (105 SC 830, 83 LE2d 82) (1985), and from DeBroux v. State, 176 Ga. App. 81 (335 SE2d 170) (1985), by the fact that a dismissal of the appeal will not result in any violation of the appellant’s constitutional right to the assistance of counsel on appeal. Unlike the defendant in Evitts, the appellant in the present case is representing himself; and unlike the defendant in DeBroux, he has made no assertion nor taken any action which would suggest that his failure to employ counsel resulted from indigency or from any other disability. Under the circumstances, I can conceive of no reason why his failure to comply with the order of this court directing him to file a brief and enumeration of errors and warning him of the possible consequences of failing to do so should not be considered ground for dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Rule 14 of this court.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen joins in this dissent.