Court Opinion

ID: 9581434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:14:56.908488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:57.138366
License: Public Domain

Been, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
While concurring fully with the majority opinion, I believe that it is not inappropriate to add these additional comments.
I cannot agree with the observation made in one of the dissenting opinions to the effect that the “funds are no longer in existence.” We have no way of knowing at this point in time whether the particular and identical funds still exist. It may be that Vurgess still has in his possession the actual money seized, squirreled away in a safe, sock drawer, or under a mattress, or it may be that the state actually still has the money, if the officer below disbursed the $7,442 in other funds (or perhaps by check). The present problem of placing one’s finger upon the exact money found in the apartment, locating the exact dollars and cents might be “ ‘much like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall.’ ” Sewell v. Eubanks, 181 Ga. App. 545 (352 SE2d 802) (1987). *547Nevertheless, that possible problem should not prematurely deprive the state of its right to appeal. The state’s attempted appeal at this stage is neither a day late nor a dollar short.