Brown v. Holland, 26903

• Decision Date: 11 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 26903,26903
• Citation: 187 S.E.2d 246,228 Ga. 628
• Parties: Harry BROWN v. F. E. HOLLAND.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 246

187 S.E.2d 246

228 Ga. 628

Harry BROWN v. F. E. HOLLAND.

No. 26903.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 11, 1972.

Harry Brown, pro se.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Dorothy T. Beasley, Richard S. Gault, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

MOBLEY, Presiding Justice.

The appellant, who was convicted of theft of a motor vehicle and sentenced to 8 years in the penitentiary, filed petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Butts County, where he is serving his sentence. After hearing, the habeas corpus court denied relief under the petition. The appeal is from that judgment.

1. Enumerated error 1 alleges that the court failed to construe the petition and testimony of the appellant so as to do substantial justice. He contends in his brief that the finding of the habeas corpus court that none of his constitutional rights were denied him on the trial of his criminal case was insufficient because the judge did not address himself to all the constitutional grounds. The record shows otherwise. The trial court did consider his allegations and contentions and the evidence thereon, and made findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with the requirements of Code Ann. § 50-127(9) (Ga.L.1967, pp. 835, 836). See Day v. Mills, 224 Ga. 741, 744, 164 S.E.2d 828, where this court held that Code Ann. § 50-127(9) 'does not require the trial court at a habeas corpus hearing to set forth each fact upon which he bases his finding.' It was held in that case that 'the trial court made sufficient findings of fact . . . by expressly ruling as a matter of fact that none of petitioner's constitutional rights had been violated by the arresting officers and that petitioner had a fair and legal trial. This determination shows the incorporation of and consideration of the facts before the court. Thus, this judgment fully complies with the provisions of Code Ann. § 50-127(9) (Ga.L.1967, pp. 835, 836).' The court in the present case found 'that none of this petitioner's constitutional rights have been violated and that he is lawfully restrained of his liberty by the respondent.' This enumerated error is without merit.

2. Enumerated error 2 alleges that the court erred in failing to admit affidavits of the appellant and others stating that a named juror on the trial of the appellant's case knew the appellant but failed to state this on voir dire. Enumerated error 5 alleges that the court erred in failing to consider fully the allegation concerning the juror who knew the appellant, and that the appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to an impartial jury. The judge at the habeas corpus hearing gave full consideration to the issue made as to the juror who knew the appellant. The evidence showed that the appellant knew the juror and so informed his counsel, and they chose to accept him. The trial judge held that the appellant knew the juror and knew whether he answered correctly on voir dire, elected to take his chances on him as a juror, and that he would now be precluded from taking exception to the juror being on his case. There is no evidence to show any bias or prejudice of this juror against the appellant. The acceptance of the juror with knowledge of any alleged disqualification was a waiver of such disqualification. Bitting v. State, 165 Ga. 55, 82, 139 S.E. 877; Anthony v. State, 112 Ga.App. 444(1), 145 S.E.2d 657. There is no merit in enumerated errors 2 and 5.

3. In enumerated error 3 the appellant contends that the court erred in failing to conduct a wide inquiry into the facts surrounding the allegations made by him so as to discover the true relevant facts. '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, . . . and the burden is upon the prisoner to overcome this presumption.' Gay v. Balkcom, 219 Ga. 554, 134 S.E.2d 600; Beavers v. Smith, 227 Ga. 344, 348, 180 S.E.2d 717. The court was under no obligation to assist the appellant in overcoming the presumption of the validity of his sentence. However, the record indicates that the court did assist the appellant, who represented himself, in developing his case, and was most considerate of him. This enumerated error is without merit.

4. Enumerated error 4 alleges that the habeas corpus court erred in conducting an inquiry into the past record of the appellant, which was irrelevant and prejudicial. The questions by the court regarding the appellant's past record were asked after the appellant had told the court that he did not know of his rights when he was arrested. The purpose of the court's questions was to determine whether the appellant knew of his rights because of prior arrests. The only determination that the judge was making in the habeas corpus proceeding was the legality of the sentence, and it must be assumed that the judge would not be prejudiced on this question by information in regard to former offenses of the appellant.

5. The 6th enumerated error alleges that the court erred in failing to order a transcript of the evidence of the original trial and in failing to consider the transcript to determine the competency of the appellant's appointed counsel. There is no showing that the trial court needed the transcript to determine the competency of the attorney. Evidence was introduced at the habeas corpus hearing on this issue, and the court did not err in holding that he was competent.

6. Enumerated error 7 alleges that the court erred in failing to consider and view the original trial transcript to determine the truth of the allegations relating to the introduction of evidence claimed to be inadmissible. 'It is a well-settled rule of practice and procedure that where one . . . has been convicted of crime, habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or other remedial procedure for the correction of errors and irregularities; . . . It is an appropriate remedy only when the judgment or sentence under which applicant is being restrained is not merely erroneous but is absolutely void. Sanders v. Aldredge, 189 Ga. 69, 5 S.E.2d 371; Morris v. Peacock, 202 Ga. 524(1), 43 S.E.2d 531.' Ferguson v. Balkcom, 222 Ga. 676, 151 S.E.2d 707. See also Grimes v. Harvey, 219 Ga. 675, 135 S.E.2d 281; Bonner v. Smith, 226 Ga. 250(3), 174 S.E.2d 438. There is no merit in...