Brand v. Wofford
| Decision Date | 02 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 27970,27970 |
| Citation | 230 Ga. 750,199 S.E.2d 231 |
| Parties | Don Wayne BRAND v. Charles A. WOFFORD, II. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Don Wayne Brand, pro se.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, David L. G. King, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Don Wayne Brand filed a habeas corpus action in the Superior Court of Ware County. After a hearing, the trial court remanded the applicant to the custody of the warden. He appeals to this court. Held:
1. The record shows that the appellant and two others burglarized a drug store. The proprietors saw two men inside the store about 8:00 p.m., the burglar alarm was ringing, and there was a broken glass panel; one of the proprietors saw an automobile parked in the parking lot but could not read the license number; they saw the appellant and one of his companions leave the store and the appellant ordered them not to attempt to follow them; the proprietors did attempt to follow the appellant's vehicle and two shots were fired at them; they then called the police; the police soon spotted the mud-covered car of the appellant, gave chase and after an exchange of gun shots, the appellant's vehicle wrecked; the proprietors were brought to the arrest scene where they identified the appellant and the stolen drugs; and the appellant did not have counsel at that time.
The appellant contends that he was 'subjected to an illegal lineup in that he was not provided with the assistance of counsel when he was identified at the arrest scene. There is no merit in this contention. He was not entitled to counsel in a pre-indictment confrontation. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411.
2. The appellant contends that he was arrested without a warrant and held in custody for three weeks without a preliminary hearing.
The holding of a commitment hearing is not a requisite to a trial for the commission of a felony. Code § 27-407 recites that it 'is simply to determine whether there is sufficient reason to suspect the guilt of the accused, to require him to appear and answer before the court competent to try him; and whenever such probable cause exists, it is the duty of the court to commit.' Holmes v. State, 224 Ga. 553, 556, 163 S.E.2d 803; Burston v. Caldwell, 228 Ga. 795(3), 187 S.E.2d 900.
3. The appellant contends that he remained in custody from January 20, 1970, through April 28, 1970, without arraignment. Code Ann. § 27-1401 provides: 'In all criminal cases, the court shall fix a date on which the defendant shall be arraigned.' (Ga.L.1966, pp. 430, 431). There is no provision of law requiring that an accused be arraigned within any fixed period of time.
4. The appellant contends that he did not have counsel at his preliminary hearing and that he was constitutionally entitled thereto.
The record shows that three men participated in the burglary. The attorney for the other two defendants knew the appellant well and knew the circumstances of this case. At the preliminary hearing the attorney volunteered his services to the appellant because he did not want him to say anything at that point which would injure him and he was so appointed by the court.
5. The appellant contends that his attorney at the trial was appointed 3 or 4 days before the arraignment and trial and therefore he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The attorney who represented the appellant testified that he was appointed to represent the appellant about two weeks before the trial, that he had represented him at the preliminary hearing, tht he had talked with him several times, and that he had ample time to prepare the case for trial. There is no merit in this contention of the appellant.
6. The appellant contends that before his trial began he was led in handcuffs through the corridor of the courthouse where prospective jurors were standing among the other spectators and that this denied him a fair trial. We do not agree. Starr v. State, 209 Ga. 258(5), 71 S.E.2d 654.
7. The appellant contends that the jury was not sequestered during the overnight recess of his case, that members of the jury's families were in the courtroom during his co-defendants' pleas of guilty and heard the district attorney make some remarks to the court during their probation request, and that the members of the jury's families discussed these matters with the jury members in their respective homes during the overnight recess since the court had not admonished them otherwise.
The trial transcript does not show that the trial lasted longer than one day. However, the attorney who represented the appellant testified that it did, that he discussed the question of sequestration of the jury with the appellant and that they agreed that the jury would not be locked up overnight. The attorney did not remember whether the jury was admonished not to discuss the case.
In a habeas corpus hearing there is a presumption in favor of the conviction or judgment unreversed, and that the decision of the court convicting the prisoner was well founded. Code § 38-114; Stanforth v. Balkcom, 217 Ga. 816, 125 S.E.2d 505; Gay v. Balkcom, 219 Ga. 554, 134 S.E.2d 600; Dutton v. Parker, 222 Ga. 532, 150 S.E.2d 833; Dutton v. Morris, 222 Ga. 595(1), 151 S.E.2d 125; Smith v. Brown, 228 Ga. 584, 187 S.E.2d 142.
There is no evidence in the record that any members of the jury's families were in the courtroom during his co-defendants' pleas of guilty or during the remarks of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gates v. State
...v. State, 228 Ga. 39(18), 184 S.E.2d 82 (1971), cert. den. 405 U.S. 1050, 92 S.Ct. 1511, 31 L.Ed.2d 786. See also Brand v. Wofford, 230 Ga. 750, 752, 199 S.E.2d 231 (1973); Starr v. State, 209 Ga. 258(5), 71 S.E.2d 654 (1952). At trial, the court has discretion in requiring a defendant to b......
-
Flynt v. State
...held to be within permissible bounds in cases such as Patterson v. State, 124 Ga. 408, 409, 52 S.E. 534 (1905); Brand v. Wofford, 230 Ga. 750, 754(9), 199 S.E.2d 231 (1973), and Jackson v. State, 219 Ga. 819, 821, 136 S.E.2d 375 (1964). 'Flights of oratory and false logic do not call for mi......
-
Green v. State
...did not err in overruling the appellant's motion for a mistrial. Morris v. State, 228 Ga. 39, 184 S.E.2d 82 (1971); Brand v. Wofford, 230 Ga. 750, 199 S.E.2d 231 (1973). 7. In Enumeration 9, the appellant alleges, "The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based upo......
-
Coker v. State
...See, McCluskey v. American Oil Co., 225 Ga. 63, 65, 165 S.E.2d 830; Howard v. State, 229 Ga. 839, 840, 195 S.E.2d 14; Brand v. Wofford, 230 Ga. 750(9), 199 S.E.2d 231. The record does not reflect a manifest abuse of discretion in overruling the motion for mistrial and does not require rever......