prosecution for the same offense. Thus, an order of nolle prosequi is not necessarily the ending of the prosecution, but the continuance of the same as the State clearly has the authority to re-indict the defendant for the same offense.” (citation and punctuation omitted)); McGahee v. State, 133 Ga. App. 964, 966 (3) (213 SE2d 91) (1975) (“A nolle prosequi is a cessation of prosecution for the nonce, but it may spring into life again and be continued again with all of the fervor and energy at the command of the prosecuting officers. A new indictment may be returned or a new accusation may be filed, and the earlier nolle prosequi can in no sense be pleaded as autrefois acquit or former jeopardy, or res judicata.”). 29 Cf. Pope v. State, 309 Ga. App. 728, 729 (2) (710 SE2d 911) (2011) (<HOLDING>); Evans, 293 Ga.App. at 373 (1) (“[The
holding that a defendants guilty plea was unconditional where the guilty plea was not in writing and the government did not consent to it being conditional holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge holding that the dismissal of an indictment before trial and institution of a superseding indictment does not trigger double jeopardy holding that plea in bar was properly denied when bjecause the trial court did not accept a guilty plea to the deaddocketed counts 4 and 5 of the fulton county indictment which alleged the same crimes as the gwinnett county indictment here jeopardy did not attach holding jeopardy attaches when the guilty plea is accepted