 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Thompson5/21/2003
In both of these cases, the State appeals the trial courts' grant of the defendants' motions to dismiss the accusations because they were not filed within the two year period of limitations. See OCGA § 17-3-1 (d). In each appeal the issue arose because the previous policy of the clerk of court's office was not to file-stamp accusations when they were filed by the solicitor. Because the appeals concern the same issues, we have consolidated them for disposition.
In Appeal No. A03A0088, The State v. Thompson, the record shows that Thompson was cited for speeding on April 6, 2000, and the accusation was forwarded by the solicitor's office, and received at the clerk of court's office, with the solicitor's date stamp showing that the accusation was filed on March 21, 2002. The original accusation, however, had a "whited out" date stamp of March 20, 2002. The computer-generated docket sheet for this case indicates that it was filed on March 21, 2002.
Additionally, the Court Support Manager for the Criminal Division in the clerk of court's office testified that accusations are received in stacks from the Solicitor's office with date stamps already on them. The first thing the clerk's office does is ensure that the solicitor's office date stamp correctly shows the date the accusations were brought to the clerk's office. If it does, the clerk's office processes the accusation. If the date on the accusation is not that day's date, the clerk noting this discrepancy would line through the date and write the correct date on the accusation.
The trial court found that the uncontradicted evidence is that the stamp that was placed on the accusation was placed there by the solicitor's office, and then it was transferred to the clerk's office. And as far as I can tell the first stamp that I could reasonably attribute to the clerk's office is this stamp right here that is definitely placed on there by the clerk's office on the court's file. And this stamp is dated April 26, 2002, which is outside the statute of limitations in this case.
So inasmuch as the State has not presented sufficient evidence to me to show the accusation was properly filed in this case prior to the two-year statute of limitation, I'm going to grant [Thompson's] motion.
Thus, the charge against Thompson was dismissed.
In Appeal No. A03A0094, The State v. Lee, the record shows that Lee was cited for failure to maintain lane and driving under the influence on March 9, 2000. The accusation received in the clerk's office was stamped as filed on February 20, 2002.
At the hearing on Lee's motion to dismiss, the Chief Deputy Clerk for the Criminal Division testified that she oversees the filing of accusations in the clerk's office. She testified that the date stamped on the accusations against Lee is the date the accusations were deemed to be filed in the clerk of court's office. She also testified about the procedures used in the clerk's office, which were the same as those described above regarding the filing of Thompson's accusations. Thus, she deemed that the accusations against Lee were filed on February 20, 2002, the date stamped on the face of the accusations. The clerk who actually processed the accusations against Lee testified that the date shown on the accusations, February 20, 2002, was the actual date the accusation was received by the clerk's office.
The trial court concluded, however, that the State had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accusations were filed within the period of limitations and dismissed the accusations.
Because we find that the evidence shows that the accusations in these cases were received and filed on
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|