In Jones v. State, A07A0789, May 10th, 2007 case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.  However, the Court did hold that conviction of a crime following a trial in which perjured testimony on a material point is knowingly used by the prosecution is an infringement on the accused's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law.  However, in the case at bar the Court found the shortcomings in the officer's testimony "mere inconsistencies" not rising to the level of perjury.   The Appellant Jones proceeding pro se appealed and he did not  use available transcripts and other materials available to support his claim of perjury but relied on the officers' testimony alone.   The Appellant also raised the issue of proper implied consent and that Intoxilyzer 5000 was working properly.   This case illustrates the important fact that a perons who represents himself has a fool for a client.  

---