Ramey v. State

I concur in Divisions 1, 2, and 4, and in the ruling in Division 3, but I believe further discussion is appropriate in that division.

The bulk of appellant’s brief is directed to his contention that he was entitled to a charge on consent under the circumstances of this case.

The majority makes clear that the reason consent is not an issue in this case is because the appellant was charged under OCGA §§ 16-5-23 (a) (2) and 16-5-23.1 rather than under OCGA § 16-5:23 (a) (1), and I agree. However, the appellant has cited language from Georgia cases which on its face appears to support his position…