Chaffin v. State, 26214
| Decision Date | 04 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26214,26214 |
| Citation | 227 Ga. 327,180 S.E.2d 741 |
| Parties | James CHAFFIN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Glenn Zell, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carter Goode, Tony H. Hight, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, William R. Childers, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
James Chaffin was accused, tried and convicted of the offense of robbery by open force and violence and sentenced in accordance with the recommendation of the jury to a term of 15 years imprisonment. He made a motion for a new trial and upon the overruling of that motion appealed his conviction to this court which affirmed the trial court, 225 Ga. 602, 170 S.E.2d 426. Thereafter, he applied to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was issued and upon the trial of that issue the U.S. District Court ordered that the appellant be re-tried because of an alleged error in the charge of the court respecting alibi. Upon his retrial, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty and recommending him to the mercy of the court. In accordance with that verdict, a life sentence was imposed and after his motion for new trial was overruled he again appealed to this court. In his appeal and in his brief and argument here appellant contends that the court erred in charging the jury so as to permit them to return a verdict and authorizing the imposition of a sentence upon him in excess of the 15 years which previously had been imposed upon him on the former trial of the case. He also contends that the court erred in permitting the cross examination of the lawyer who represented him on the former trial with respect to the said lawyer's reasons for failing to raise the defense of insanity.
1. Appellant contends that to permit the imposition of a harsher sentence upon him upon his re-trial violates the constitutional guaranty included in the Fifth Amendment against twice putting him in jeopardy and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of these contentions, he cites and chiefly relies upon the case of North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2089, 23 L.Ed. 656. That case, however, is not authority for appellant's position. In that case, the Supreme Court of the United States had before it two questions, to wit: whether the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy is violated when punishment already exacted for an offense is not fully credited in imposing a new sentence after re-trial for the same offense; and, whether there was any absolute constitutional bar to imposing a more severe sentence on reconviction. A careful reading of the opinion of the Supreme Court in that case reveals that the court answered the former question in the affirmative, but answered the latter question in the negative, holding specifically and expressly that the guarantee against double jeopardy does not restrict the length of sentence which may be imposed upon reconviction, and that imposition of a more severe sentence upon re-trial does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This court, in the case of Salisbury v. Grimes, 223 Ga. 776(2), 158 S.E.2d 412, expressly passed upon a similar contention with respect to a denial of equal protection of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment holding therein adversely to the contentions of the appellant here. Upon authority of these cases, we hold that there is no merit in the contention of the appellant with respect to the imposition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaffin v. Stynchcombe 8212 6732
...again to the State Supreme Court. That court affirmed the lower court's judgment and refused to alter petitioner's sentence. 227 Ga. 327, 180 S.E.2d 741 (1971). He then filed his second application for habeas relief in the Federal District Court, arguing that the higher sentence was invalid......
-
Chaffin v. Stynchcombe
...years, in the discretion of the court. 3 Chaffin v. State, 225 Ga. 602, 170 S.E. 2d 426 (1969). 4 See note 2 supra. 5 Chaffin v. State, 227 Ga. 327, 180 S.E.2d 741 (1971). 6 After oral argument Chaffin, acting pro se, filed several letters with this court apparently seeking to raise a claim......
-
Rozier v. State, 47199
...the Federal jurisdiction. Salisbury v. Grimes, 406 F.2d 50. After the Pearce case our Supreme Court was called upon in Chaffin v. State, 227 Ga. 327(1), 180 S.E.2d 741, to pass on this question. It pointed out that the Pearce case held 'that the guarantee against double jeopardy does not re......
-
Hughes v. Newell
...was first explored on direct examination. See in this regard Sullens v. State, 239 Ga. 766, 767(2), 238 S.E.2d 864 and Chaffin v. State, 227 Ga. 327, 329, 180 S.E.2d 741. 4. Plaintiffs' action against John Williams was predicated upon the family purpose car doctrine, was purely derivative i......