A jury found Thomas Sherrod Mathis guilty of running a red light and operating a motor vehicle in violation of the habitual violator statute. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on counts charging Mathis with interference with government property and driving while under the influence. In a single enumeration of error, Mathis alleges the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial because the court repeatedly expressed an opinion as to the merits of his case. We find no error and affirm Mathis’ convictions. OCGA § 17-8-57 provides that it is error for any judge in a criminal case to express or intimate his opinion as to what has or has not been proved or as to the guilt of the accused. Here, Mathis does not cite to any portions of the record wherein the trial court allegedly offers an opinion as to what has been proved or as to the merits of the case; nor does he point to any statement of opinion by the trial court regarding Mathis’ guilt or innocence. Instead, he argues that the trial court’s opinion in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 was extrapolated by the jury from the court’s “sua sponte rebukes, improperly sustaining an un-meritorious objection from the state, and by not sustaining a proper objection from counsel.” Mathis argues that “the conduct of the court intimated to the jury that Defendant’s counsel was not worthy of belief and thus that Defendant’s theory of his case was not worthy of belief.” This enumeration of error is without merit.
We first note that no objection or motion for mistrial was made with regard to the trial court’s conduct about which Mathis now complains. Because Mathis did not move for a mistrial, his complaint regarding the OCGA § 17-8-57 violation has been waived.1 However, the “plain error” doctrine applies to allegations of improper judicial commentary.2 Therefore, where, as in the present case, a defendant fails to object or move for a mistrial after the judge’s remarks, an appellate court conducts a two-part inquiry: First, we determine whether the commentary was improper. Then, we review the commentary to determine whether it amounted to an obvious violation of OCGA § 17-8-57, meaning that it seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of these judicial proceedings.3 A thorough review of the comments by the trial court of which Mathis complained reveals that each was directed toward keeping the judicial proceedings in compliance with court and evidentiary rules. No comment reflected upon either the evidence or Mathis.
