 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nesmith v. State5/20/2004
neled at the time the demand is entered in order for the demand to be timely; it simply requires that the demand be entered either at the term of court at which the [accusation] was [filed] or at the next succeeding regular term thereafter." (Footnote omitted.) Id. at 490(1), 422 S.E.2d 180. This same analysis can be applied here to conclude that, contrary to Nesmith's argument, the time for filing a demand for speedy trial does not depend upon whether there are jurors impaneled. Only the time within which the State must try Nesmith is affected by the availability of jurors. See MacInnis, supra, 235 Ga.App. at 734-735, 510 S.E.2d 557.
Therefore, as Nesmith was charged during the July term of court, in order for his demand to have been timely, it should have been filed during either the July or September terms of court. Since Nesmith's demand for speedy trial was filed during the November term of court, outside of the statutory time period, and the trial court did not grant special permission for an untimely filing, the denial of *532 Nesmith's motion for discharge and acquittal was proper. See Parks v. State, 239 Ga.App. 333, 334-335, 521 S.E.2d 370 (1999); see also Ingram v. State, 224 Ga.App. 271, 272(3), 480 S.E.2d 302 (1997).
Judgment affirmed.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|