Summary
Judgment affirmed. Andrews, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur.
Summary
Judgment affirmed. Andrews, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur.
Text
J. Gray Conger, District Attorney, E. Wayne Jernigan, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Defendant was tried before a jury and found guilty of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, driving under the influence of alcohol, no proof of insurance, driving while license suspended or revoked, stop sign violation, and violation of the open container law. The charges arise out of a traffic stop initiated by Columbus Police Officer Nathan Lunsford, who observed defendant disregard a stop sign while not wearing a seat belt. Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, pursuant to the grant of an out-of-time appeal. Held:
1. In his first enumeration of error, defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon for want of any evidence of criminal intent.
Cornelius v. State,
2. In his remaining enumerations of error, defendant contends that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. However, nothing of record reflects that these claims were presented to the trial court for determination, either by an amended motion for new trial or in an application for an out-of-time appeal to make an out-of-time motion for new trial upon this special ground. [1] See Bohannon v. State,
Notes:
1. By its brief on appeal, the State indicates that defendant's appellate counsel filed an amended motion for new trial in which he added the special ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. At the new trial hearing, trial counsel's ineffectiveness was argued only in terms of whether trial counsel relayed an offer to the defendant, a claim not enumerated on appeal. The trial court's order denying defendant's motion for new trial does not make reference to an amended motion for new trial. Nor was such a motion forwarded with the record on appeal, although defendant's notice of appeal directs the clerk to omit nothing from the record." Accordingly, there is nothing for our review on appeal. Wright v. State,
Sponsored links