From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bissel v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 12, 1972
189 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)





Burglary. Cobb Superior Court. Before Judge Hames.

William L. Gower, John McGuigan, for appellant.

Ben F. Smith, District Attorney, for appellee.

The defendant was convicted of burglary. He appeals from the order overruling his motion for new trial. 1. The defendant has limited his argument on the general grounds to the theory that under the facts of this case he cannot be convicted of burglary. The evidence amply shows that the defendant unlawfully entered a gasoline service station with intent to commit theft. It is urged that a building of this nature is not the subject of burglary under the provisions of Code Ann. § 26-1601 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1287). This argument has no merit and is controlled adversely to appellant by Mixon v. State, 226 Ga. 869 ( 178 S.E.2d 189).

2. After the commencement of the trial and the hearing of testimony of witnesses, the defendant objected to the receipt of certain evidence on the ground that it was obtained as the result of an unlawful arrest of defendant and a search of his automobile. The trial judge overruled the objection. Defendant made no motion to suppress the evidence in writing as required by Code Ann. § 27-313. Failure to comply with this statutory provision amounts to a waiver of the constitutional guarantee in respect to the challenged search and seizure. Lane v. State, 118 Ga. App. 688 ( 165 S.E.2d 474).

Judgment affirmed. Evans and Stolz, JJ., concur.

ARGUED APRIL 3, 1972 — DECIDED APRIL 12, 1972.

Summaries of

Bissel v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 12, 1972
189 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)
Case details for

Bissel v. State

Case Details

Full title:BISSEL v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Apr 12, 1972


189 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)
189 S.E.2d 701

Citing Cases

Stansifer v. State

Hence, we find no error in the procedure followed after the defendant failed to file a written motion to…

Hawes v. State

As the Court of Appeals has held on numerous occasions, a failure to interpose a timely motion to suppress…