Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hooten v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 15, 1994No. A93A2206, A93A2497Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBeasley, Presiding Judge

I concur fully in all but the first division of the majority opinion. I would not overrule the decisions which have established and refined the practice of permitting a defendant to acknowledge guilt, receive a sentence, and with the agreement of the State and discretionary approval of the trial court, reserve a particular issue or issues for appellate review. So long as this expeditious procedure is clearly followed in the trial court, as we urged in Springsteen v. State, 206 Ga. App. 150, 151 (424 SE2d 832) (1992), the parties, the witnesses, and the court should not be put to the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mims v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1991
  2. Springsteen v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1992
  3. Daniel v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1991
  4. Claffey v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1993
  5. Claffey v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API