From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jul 14, 1981
283 S.E.2d 324 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

61730.

DECIDED JULY 14, 1981. REHEARING DENIED JULY 21, 1981.

Drug violation. Crisp Superior Court. Before Judge Gregory.

Gary Christy, District Attorney, for appellee.


Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine; possession of methaqualone; and possession of marijuana, and sentenced to serve ten years on Count 1; seven on Count 2; and four on Count 3, all to run concurrently. His attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 ( 87 SC 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493). In accordance with Anders, counsel has filed a brief raising points of law which he considered could arguably support an appeal. We are in agreement with counsel that none of the points raised, though persuasively presented, have any merit. We have therefore granted the motion to withdraw. In addition, we have fully examined the record and transcript to determine independently if there are any meritorious errors of law. We have found none. We are satisfied that the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to authorize any rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560); Baldwin v. State, 153 Ga. App. 35, 37 ( 264 S.E.2d 528).

Judgment affirmed. Birdsong and Sognier, JJ., concur.


DECIDED JULY 14, 1981 — REHEARING DENIED JULY 21, 1981.


Summaries of

Hill v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jul 14, 1981
283 S.E.2d 324 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

Hill v. State

Case Details

Full title:HILL v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jul 14, 1981

Citations

283 S.E.2d 324 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
159 Ga. App. 349

Citing Cases

Honea v. State

Hardin v. State, 141 Ga. App. 115, 117-118 ( 232 S.E.2d 631) (1977); Westmoreland v. State, 151 Ga. App. 850,…

Gumina v. State

Sears did not raise this issue at trial, thus there is nothing presented for this court to review. Smith v.…