Chapman v. State
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Cobb, J.
Chapman was convicted of the offense of burglary, and assigns error upon the refusal of the court to grant him a new trial.
1. In five grounds of the motion for a new trial objections are made to the character of the sentence imposed by the court. Objections to a sentence can not be properly made grounds of a motion for a new trial. If there has been a lawful verdict of conviction rendered in a criminal case, an error committed by the judge in the imposition of the sentence will be no sufficient reason for setting aside the verdict and trying the accused again upon the question of his guilt or innocence. Such being the case, of course the objection should not be set forth in a motion for a new trial, which is the remedy given to the accused for determining whether any error has been committed prior to the verdict which would require another trial. See Burgamy v. State, 114 Ga. 852 (2), and case cited.
2. The evidence authorized the verdict. The charge of the judge fairly submitted the case to the jury, and no sufficient reason has been shown why a new trial should have been granted.
Judgment affirmed.
By Jive Justices.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“Objections to a sentence can not be properly made grounds of a motion for a new trial.”)
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.