☢ test - Í

Brown v. State, 264 Ga.App. 9, 589 S.E.2d 830 (October 23, 2003). Speedy trial demand filed pro se when defendant was represented by counsel “‘was of no legal effect whatsoever.’” Roberts v. State, 263 Ga.App. 472, 588 S.E.2d 242 (September 4, 2003). Speedy trial demand filed day before indictment was “premature and untimely,” notwithstanding prosecutor’s announcement at municipal court that defendant had already been indicted (thus preventing preliminary hearing). Oliver v. State, 262 Ga.App. 637, 586 S.E.2d 333 (July 2, 2003). DUI prosecution was nolle prossed in Gwinnett County Recorder’s Court and filed in State Court. Defendant had filed a “Demand for Speedy Bench Trial” in Recorder’s Court, but did not file a speedy trial demand of any kind in State Court. Held, demand filed in Recorder’s Court, which does not impanel juries and does not have regular terms, was not binding on the State Court . “The coincidence that the same prosecutor served in the recorder’s court and the state court is irrelevant.” Likewise, since the recorder’s court doesn’t impanel juries, the fact that the transfer was not instigated by defendant is “irrelevant.” Accord, Jones v. State , 304 Ga.App. 445, 696 S.E.2d 346 (May 27, 2010). Prather v. State, 261 Ga.App. 506, 583 S.E.2d 191 (June 5, 2003). After a bond revocation hearing, defense counsel asked about a trial date. The trial judge responded, “‘I have ruled. We will get him on trial as soon as we can get him there. You want a demand, file it and we will try this case quickly.’” Counsel therefore filed his out-of-time speedy trial demand. Held, this amounted to special permission from the court to file an out-of-time demand, and defendant was entitled to be discharged when not brought to trial within two terms following. Direct appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss under OCGA § 17-7-170 was proper. Distinguished in Rogers v. State , 271 Ga.App. 698, 610 S.E.2d 679 (February 18, 2005) (“[i]n contrast, in this case the trial judge merely accepted the speedy trial demand, along with several other motions, for filing in open court, after explaining to Rogers that she was accepting the motions for filing so that they could be stamped by the clerk and made a part of the record.”). Brooks v. State, 257 Ga.App. 515, 571 S.E.2d 504 (September 20, 2002). Where term of court is set to begin on “first and second Mondays” of a month, only one term is indicated, rather than having a one-week long term followed by a three- month long term. Accord, Burnett v. State , 309 Ga.App. 422, 710 S.E.2d 624 (April 27, 2011). Johnson v. State, 251 Ga.App. 489, 554 S.E.2d 612 (September 7, 2001). A special term, one called after the adjournment of a regular term and before the beginning of the next regular term, is excluded from the time in which a defendant must be tried pursuant to his speedy trial demand, but a special session held within a regular term is not excluded. Lagyak v. State, 245 Ga.App. 546, 538 S.E.2d 467 (August 15, 2000). In DUI prosecution, trial court properly denied motion for discharge based on statutory speedy trial demand. Demand filed July 1 was premature where accusation wasn’t filed until July 28. Fact that clerk assigned a case number prior to filing of accusation didn’t change analysis. “As a panel of this court pointed out in Shire [ v. State, 225 Ga.App. 306, 308(1), 483 S.E.2d 694 (1997)] , we will not allow a defendant to ‘file’ a case against himself and thereby manipulate the system in an attempt to avoid prosecution. Furthermore, Lagyak has not shown that the state court set an arraignment date before July 1, 1998, or that scheduling an arraignment date satisfies the statutory requirement that an accusation be filed.” Fausnaugh v. State, 244 Ga.App. 263, 534 S.E.2d 554 (May 11, 2000). Defendant was stopped in Henry County and charged with DUI. His UTC was filed in Probate Court. Defendant filed various motions in Probate Court, including a demand for speedy trial. Shortly thereafter, a State Court was created in the county and Defendant’s case was transferred there. Two terms after defendant’s case was transferred to State Court, defendant demanded discharge and acquittal on the DUI charge, based on the speedy trial demand filed in the Probate Court. Held, the speedy trial demand filed in Probate Court was completely ineffectual, as that court is not a court of record and does not conduct jury trials. Accord, Conley v. State , 267 Ga.App. 185, 598 S.E.2d 897 (April 23, 2004) (speedy trial demand filed in Probate Court of no effect in Superior Court after defendant filed demand for jury trial and did not re-file speedy trial demand in Superior Court.) State v. Bloodworth, 241 Ga.App. 840, 528 S.E.2d 285 (January 18, 2000). Defendant’s speedy trial demand, filed before citations or accusation, was “premature and a nullity.” Also, “[a] premature demand is not resuscitated when the formal accusation or citation is filed.” Accord, Lagyak (August 15, 2000), above; Brown v. State , 264 Ga.App. 9, 589 S.E.2d 830 (October 23, 2003); Smith v. State , 266 Ga.App. 529, 597 S.E.2d 414 (February 9, 2004) (filing of warrants with superior