Court Opinion

ID: 9781302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:29:12.670692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:23.683077
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Presiding Justice,
concurring.
I fully concur in the judgment of affirmance, but write separately to emphasize that, in Division 3, the majority has not adopted the special concurrence authored by Justice Nahmias in Collier v. State, 288 Ga. 756, 759 (707 SE2d 102) (2011). This is especially clear from its quotation of Madrigal v. State, 287 Ga. 121, 122-123 (3) (694 SE2d 652) (2010) and from its citation to Dolphy v. State, 288 Ga. 705, 710 (3) (707 SE2d 56) (2011). Indeed, because the majority approves the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence did not warrant a charge on simple battery and involuntary manslaughter as lesser included offenses, the holding of Division 3 can best be expressed in the same language used by Justice Nahmias in Dolphy *511v. State, supra: “[W]e find no reversible error, much less any ‘plain error’ pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b), assuming that analysis under that provision is proper in this case. [Cits.]”
Decided July 8, 2011.
Lee W Fitzpatrick, for appellant.
Robert D. James, Jr., District Attorney, Leonora Grant, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher R. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee