Berryhill v. Ricketts
| Decision Date | 30 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 33508,33508 |
| Citation | 242 Ga. 447,249 S.E.2d 197 |
| Parties | BERRYHILL v. RICKETTS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
James C. Bonner, Jr., Albert M. Pearson, Athens, for appellant.
Charles Crawford, Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harrison Kohler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Michael Gene Berryhill, was convicted of felony murder 1 and armed robbery in the Bartow Superior Court. He received the death sentence for the murder conviction and a life imprisonment sentence for the armed robbery conviction, all of which were affirmed in his direct appeal to this court in Berryhill v. State, 235 Ga. 549, 221 S.E.2d 185 (1975). This is his habeas corpus appeal.
1. In enumeration of error 1, the appellant argues that he was deprived of due process of law and effective assistance of counsel because the trial court denied defense counsel's request to reserve his opening statement to the jury until conclusion of the state's case.
In his direct appeal the appellant also argued that the trial court erred in this ruling, but he did not specifically contend that the ruling rose to the level of a constitutional violation. This court held that directing the order in which counsel make their opening statement to the jury is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and that no abuse of discretion had been shown. Berryhill v. State, supra, 235 Ga., at pp. 550, 551, 221 S.E.2d 185. Practically implicit within a holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making a certain ruling is the determination that this ruling did not deprive the complaining party of a constitutional right. The appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel or due process of law by the ruling of the trial court in this instance.
The decisions of the United States Supreme Court cited by the appellant in support of his position recognize the broad discretion invested in the trial court to control the order of proof and arguments of counsel. See Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 45 L.Ed.2d 593 (1975); Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 93 S.Ct. 2208, 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973).
2. In enumeration of error 2, the appellant argues that his constitutional right to assistance of counsel was violated by the admission into evidence of incriminating statements elicited from him by police during an interrogation without notice to his court-appointed counsel.
At trial the appellant objected to introduction into evidence of these statements on the ground that they were involuntary, but he did not contend that they were elicited from him in violation of his right to counsel. In the appellant's direct appeal, this court rejected the argument that when a prisoner is known by the police to be represented by counsel, anything he says to police in the absence of counsel is per se inadmissible, whether voluntary or not. Berryhill v. State, supra, 235 Ga. at 551, 221 S.E.2d 185.
At trial, the police officer to whom the complained-of statements had been given testified that prior to questioning Berryhill he had given him his Miranda warnings and advised him that counsel had been appointed to represent him. It is undisputed that Berryhill did not sign a waiver-of-counsel form.
At the habeas corpus hearing, Berryhill acknowledged that he had been given his Miranda warnings, that he did sign the waiver-of-counsel form, and that he had been informed at some point that counsel had been appointed to represent him. Berryhill further testified at the habeas hearing that he had asked to be allowed to consult with his attorney before talking to police. However, he did not make this latter assertion in his testimony at trial. At the habeas hearing, Berryhill claimed not to be able to remember his trial testimony concerning this incident.
The judge presiding at the habeas corpus hearing found that Berryhill had very skillfully and adroitly answered the questions that would substantiate the claims made in his habeas corpus petition, and that he had forgotten the answers to questions that would refute the allegations in his habeas petition. The habeas corpus judge ruled adversely to Berryhill on his claimed violation of this constitutional right.
If Berryhill had asked to see his attorney prior to talking to police, any statements given to police prior to consultation with his attorney would, in the absence of a subsequent waiver, be inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). If, on the other hand, Berryhill voluntarily gave statements to police without his attorney present after being informed that the attorney had been appointed to represent him, the statements would be admissible because the accused would have waived his right to have the attorney present. See e. g., Blackmon v. Blackedge, 541 F.2d 1070 (1976 4th Cir.); United States v. James, 528 F.2d 999, 1019 (1976 5th Cir.); United States v. Marchildon, 519 F.2d 337 (1975 8th Cir.); United States v. Boston, 508 F.2d 1171 (1974 2d Cir.).
From the evidence presented at the habeas hearing, the judge was authorized to find that Berryhill had been informed that an attorney had been appointed to represent him and that he then knowingly and voluntarily proceeded to give the statements admitted at trial in the absence of his attorney. The determination here of whether these statements were elicited from Berryhill in violation of his right to counsel is closely akin to a Jackson v. Denno determination as to the voluntariness of a confession. Factual and credibility determinations of this sort made by a trial judge must be accepted by the appellate court unless such determination is clearly erroneous. Johnson v. State, 233 Ga. 58, 209 S.E.2d 629 (1974).
We hold that the determination in favor of admissibility was not clearly erroneous under the facts of this case.
3. In enumeration of error 3, the appellant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his trial counsel's failure to adequately investigate the defense of insanity and present this defense to the jury.
The evidence at trial showed that the appellant had been sniffing glue since he was 13 years of age. The evidence also showed that he had been sniffing glue on the day he committed the crimes. The insanity defense which appellate counsel argues should have been more thoroughly pursued is that of organic brain disease brought on by the appellant's chronic glue sniffing.
One of the appellant's two trial counsel testified at the habeas corpus hearing. Trial counsel testified that he and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rodriquez
...172 Conn. 542, 375 A.2d 1014 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 855, 98 S.Ct. 174, 54 L.Ed.2d 126 (1977); Berryhill v. Ricketts, 242 Ga. 447, 448-49, 249 S.E.2d 197, 199 (1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 967, 99 S.Ct. 2418, 60 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1979) (if a defendant gives a statement after being infor......
-
Collier v. State
...173 (1977); Thomas v. State, 240 Ga. 393, 242 S.E.2d 1 (1977); Hall v. State, 241 Ga. 252, 244 S.E.2d 833 (1977); Berryhill v. Ricketts, 242 Ga. 447, 249 S.E.2d 197 (1978). Hilton v. State, 233 Ga. 11, 209 S.E.2d 606 However, appellant's argument goes further and urges that under the facts ......
-
Berryhill v. State
...L.Ed.2d 771 (1977)). The denial of habeas corpus as to the felony murder conviction was affirmed by this court in Berryhill v. Ricketts, 242 Ga. 447, 249 S.E.2d 197 (1978) (cert. den. 441 U.S. 967, 99 S.Ct. 2418, 60 L.Ed.2d 1073 A federal habeas corpus petition was granted by the United Sta......
-
Spence v. State
...investigation into the facts and the law. Hawes v. State, supra, 240 Ga. at 329, 240 S.E.2d 833. See also Berryhill v. Ricketts, 242 Ga. 447(3), 249 S.E.2d 197 (1978), cert. den., 441 U.S. 967, 99 S.Ct. 2418, 60 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1979). The effectiveness of counsel cannot be fairly measured by ......