Steve Christopher Langlands was charged with murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court sustained a general demurrer, and this Court affirmed, because a certain Pennsylvania conviction was improperly used as a predicate offense for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. State v. Langlands , 276 Ga. 721, 722 2 583 SE2d 18 2003. Langlands was subsequently re-indicted and convicted on all counts. The trial court granted a motion for new trial, based on ineffective assistance of counsel, with respect to murder and aggravated assault, but denied the motion as to the remaining counts. On appeal, this Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in denying a new trial as to the firearm convictions. Langlands v. State , 280 Ga. 799 633 SE2d 537 2006 Langlands II . Regarding possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, we determined that trial counsel was deficient in failing to file a special demurrer based on the mistaken allegation that the crime was committed on a date after return of the indictment. Langlands II , supra at 800-801 3. We further concluded that this deficient performance prejudiced the defense because the trial court had already quashed the same charge once before and, thus, “if trial counsel had timely challenged the same count . . . of the second indictment, any future prosecution for that crime would be barred. OCGA § 17-7-53.1; cit.” Langlands II , supra at 801 3.
After another re-indictment, the trial court overruled a plea in bar as to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In a separate order on the same day, the trial court also rejected a plea in abatement which was based on the allegedly illegal composition of the grand jury. The trial court certified, for immediate review, the order overruling the plea in bar. Langlands filed both a notice of direct appeal and an application for interlocutory appeal from that order. We granted the application in order to determine whether Langlands had a right of direct appeal and whether the trial court erred in overruling the plea in bar. “Because the murder count of the indictment still remains pending below, jurisdiction of this appeal lies in this Court. Cits.” Langlands II , supra at 799 1.
