Balkcom v. Townsend
Decision Date | 18 February 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 22258,22258 |
Parties | R. P. BALKCOM, Jr. v. Troy, W. TOWNSEND. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The trial judge erred in overruling the plea of res judicata.
Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Howard P. Wallace, Benjamin L. Johnson, Albert Sidney Johnson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, B. Daniel Dubberly, Jr., Glennville, for plaintiff in error.
Troy W. Townsend, pro se, Roberts & Thornton, E. Mullins Whisnant, Columbus, for defendant in error.
Troy W. Townsend filed his petition for habeas corpus against R. P. Balkcom, Warden. The petitioner alleged that he had been denied due process of law under the State and Federal Constitutions in that he had been denied counsel at the time he was sentenced in the Superior Court of Muscogee County in June, 1960. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial judge ordered that the respondent deliver the petitoner to the authorities of Muscogee County 'so that he may be afforded legal counsel in the charges' against him. The respondent warden excepts to this judgment.
The three indictments and sentences were introduced in evidence. In case No. 20895 the petitioner was sentenced for a period of five years for 'theft of an automobile.' In case No. 20896 the court imposed a sentence for a period of twenty years for burglary. In case No. 20897 the petitioner was charged in two counts with robbery by the use of an offensive weapon, and was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for the remainder of his life on each count. The bills of indictment disclose that the petitioner did not sign any waiver or plea of guilty and no waiver or plea was signed for him by any person as counsel. Each of the three indictments has an entry by the solicitor general as follows: 'The defendant Troy Wayne Townsend waives copy of bill of indictment, and list of witnesses sworn before the grand jury, and arraignment, and pleads guilty.'
The petitioner testified in his own behalf:
It is the contention of the respondent that the rule of res judicata applies to habeas corpus proceedings under the provisions of Code § 110-501. Counsel for the respondent cite and rely upon Perry v. McLendon, 62 Ga. 598; Day v. Smith, 172 Ga. 467, 157 S.E. 639; Andrews v. Aderhold, 201 Ga. 132, 39 S.E.2d 61; Wells v. Keith, 213 Ga. 858, 102 S.E.2d 533; Mitchem v. Balkcom, 219 Ga. 47, 131 S.E.2d 562; and similar cases. This court has consistently held in a number of full bench decisions that res judicata does apply in habeas corpus cases under the Constitution and laws of this State.
The petitioner asserts that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that: '* * * it is nevertheless the general rule that res judicata is no defense where between the time of the first judgment and the second the has been an intervening decision or a change in the law creating an altered situation.' State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Duel, 324 U.S. 154, 162, 65 S.Ct. 573, 577, 89 L.Ed. 812. The petitioner insists that this rule is applicable in his case in that at the time his first application for habeas corpus was denied his case was controlled by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Board of Pardons and Paroles v. Bridges, S97A0613
...corpus in a subsequent habeas proceeding based on the same issues of law and fact. Sanders v. McHan, supra. See also Balkcom v. Townsend, 219 Ga. 708, 135 S.E.2d 399 (1964); Mitchem v. Balkcom, 219 Ga. 47, 131 S.E.2d 562 (1963); Wells v. Keith, 213 Ga. 858, 102 S.E.2d 533 (1958); Andrews v.......
- Alexander v. Rozetta
-
Townsend v. Dutton, 24445.
...by the use of an offensive weapon. Thereafter, he unsuccessfully pursued habeas corpus relief in the state courts, Balkcom v. Townsend, 219 Ga. 708, 709, 135 S.E.2d 399 (1964). He then brought habeas corpus in the United States District Court and after an evidentiary hearing was again denie......
-
Balkcom v. Southerland
...of the alleged detention. Mitchem v. Balkcom, 219 Ga. 47, 131 S.E.2d 562; Turner v. Balkcom, 219 Ga. 48, 131 S.E.2d 563; Balkcom v. Townsend, 219 Ga. 708, 135 S.E.2d 399. The court erred in not sustaining the plea of res Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur. ...