This appeal arises from Michael B. King’s conviction after a jury trial on charges brought against him for violation of Clayton County Code of Ordinances Section 62-202 a, which makes it unlawful for the owner or occupant of real property “to utilize such property for the outside storage of . . . rubbish, trash, garbage or similar items, without a special permit therefore . . . .” The record shows King was charged in 2010 for a violation of this code section but the 2010 case was dismissed after the county solicitor’s motion for nolle prosequi was granted. A new citation for violation of the same code section was served on King on or about November 12, 2014. In response to King’s demand for a jury trial, the case against King was transferred to Clayton County State Court and the county solicitor issued a formal accusation charging King with violation of this county ordinance dated January 14, 2015.1 King’s motion to dismiss on several grounds, including a plea in bar asserting double jeopardy, was denied. The case proceeded to trial and King was convicted and sentenced. King is an attorney who practices in Clayton County and an elected member of the school board and, among other things, King argues he was prosecuted for political reasons. Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, however, we find no merit in this assertion, and for the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1. Enumerations of error numbers 1 and 9 set forth by King relate to his assertion that his prosecution was barred by the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy since he claims he was acquitted of this same charge in 2010. But King was not acquitted of the earlier charge; the 2010 charge for violation of county ordinance section 62-202 a was simply dismissed by virtue of the entry of a nolle prosequi. Nolle prosequi does not adjudicate innocence or guilt unless the accused has been placed in jeopardy. See Alexander v. State, 192 Ga. App. 211 384 SE2d 436 1989; Hunter v. State, 104 Ga. App. 576, 577 2 122 SE2d 172 1961. “As a general rule, a person is in jeopardy when he is regularly charged with a crime before a court of competent jurisdiction and a trial has commenced . . . .” State v. Smith, 185 Ga. App. 694, 696 365 SE2d 846 1988. King fails to show jeopardy had attached prior to the entry of the nolle prosequi of the 2010 charge. Relying upon OCGA § 17-7-170 b, King also asserts he is entitled to acquittal because he was not tried within two terms of court after he filed a demand for speedy trial with respect to the 2010 charge. First, the record shows King waived his demand for speedy trial made in the 2010 case. Secondly, over four years passed between the 2010 accusation for illegally utilizing his property for the outside storage of rubbish and the date of the 2015 accusation for illegal storage of rubbish. King made no showing, and it is unreasonable to assume, that the 2015 charge arises from the illegal storage of the same and no additional items at issue in the 2010 charge. We reject the assertion that prosecution of the 2015 charge against him is barred on the ground of double jeopardy or failure to prosecute him timely.
