Court Opinion

ID: 9580313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:03:58.63599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:12.266827
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the judgment, being compelled to reach the merits despite the procedural problems which render the timing askew in this and other cases. See, e.g., Sharp v. State, 183 Ga. App. 641 (360 SE2d 50) (1987). The problems could all be avoided by the filing and dating of the trial court’s order with the clerk on the day it is signed by the court, if entry is what the court intends. Otherwise, it is not “entered” as of that day, and the court has not yet officially acted on the matter. It is still within the breast of the court and may be changed. Before then, the message which entry conveys is subject to revision, and the time period it ordinarily starts running is delayed.
I would not expressly overrule Boothe v. State, 178 Ga. App. 22 (342 SE2d 9) (1986).