Burkes v. Whitley, 22961
| Decision Date | 31 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 22961,22961 |
| Citation | 143 S.E.2d 171,221 Ga. 108 |
| Parties | Charlle BURKES v. J. W. WHITLEY, Warden. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
C. B. King, Albany, for plaintiff in error.
James C. Brim, Jr., Pelham, Robert Culpepper, Jr., Camilla, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Charlie Burkes brought his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the City Court of Camilla against J. W. Whitley, Warden of Mitchell County Public Work Camp. The applicant contends that judgments entered against him on June 8, 1964, on his plea of guilty in Terrell Superior Court, which judgments sentenced him to 2 years for making tax unpaid liquor and 12 months for having tax unpaid liquor in his possession, respectively, were null and void as being in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions. After a hearing at which evidence was introduced by both parties, the trial judge denied the application for the writ and remanded the applicant to the custody of the warden. Exception was taken to that judgment and the case is here for review.
In essence, the petition alleged that the applicant suffered a deprivation of his right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Art. I, Sec. I, Par. III (Code Ann. § 2-103) and Art. I, Sec. I, Par. V (Code Ann. § 2-105) of the Georgia Constitution. The thrust of his contention is that he was so deprived of counsel because the attorney employed for him by his father: (1) failed to inform him of his right to formal arraignment and indictment; (2) entered a plea of guilty for him against his wishes and without conferring with him prior to entering such plea; (3) failed to raise the question of systematic and arbitrary exclusion of Negroes from the grand and traverse juries of Terrell County. Held:
1. The record shows that on June 1, 1964, the defendant through his employed counsel waived indictment by the grand jury, copy of the accusation, list of witnesses, formal arraignment and plead guilty. We find no merit in the applicant's argument that counsel was incompetent in failing to apprize him of the consequences of this act and entering such plea without his consent.
While the evidence was in conflict, it was sufficient to authorize the trial judge to find: that the attorney was employed to obtain a continuance of applicant's case or to obtain for him a light or probated sentence; that the applicant knew the lawyer for many years, the attorney had been previously employed by the applicant's family and the applicant was thoroughly familiar with his ability; that counsel was experienced and competent; that when the attorney was unable to obtain a continuance of the case, he then advised the applicant to plead guilty, based on his appraisal of the evidence against the applicant, and followed the wise and expedient course of seeking to obtain a probated sentence for the applicant. The record shows the lawyer did achieve an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barrow v. State, 32223
...his client to raise the issue of systematic exclusion. Cobb v. State, 218 Ga. 10, 24(6), 126 S.E.2d 231 (1962)." Burkes v. Whitley, 221 Ga. 108, 109, 143 S.E.2d 171, 173 (1965). In his testimony at the hearing on Barrow's motions, the public defender, who had represented Barrow at his first......
-
Cobb v. Dutton
...evidence. Code § 38-103; Solesbee v. Balkcom, 207 Ga. 352, 61 S.E.2d 471; Gay v. Balkcom, 219 Ga. 554, 134 S.E.2d 600; Burkes v. Whitley, 221 Ga. 108(1), 143 S.E.2d 171; Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275(5), 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830; Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann. 317 U.S. 269, 281......
-
Ballard v. Smith
...Had he had any objection, he should have made it known at the time and before the court acted thereon.' See also Burkes v. Whitley, 221 Ga. 108(1), 143 S.E.2d 171; Cobb v. Dutton, 222 Ga. 11(1), 148 S.E.2d 399.' This contention is without 4. The fact that the accused was held for several da......
-
Smith v. Fuller
...Had he had any objection, he should have made it known at the time and before the court acted thereon.' See also Burkes v. Whitley, 221 Ga. 108(1), 143 S.E.2d 171; Cobb v. Dutton, 222 Ga. 11(1), 148 S.E.2d The evidence in the present case did not show any illegality in the sentence which th......