Buxton v. Brown
| Decision Date | 22 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23711,23711 |
| Citation | 222 Ga. 564,150 S.E.2d 636 |
| Parties | John M. BUXTON v. D. H. BROWN, Warden. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Altman & Johnson, Sol Altman, Thomasville, for appellant.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., G. Ernest Tidwell, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles B. Merrill, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
On October 27, 1964, John M. Buxton was convicted of burglary in Thomas County and was sentenced to serve a prison term of 7 years. On January 14, 1966, he brought habeas corpus against D. H. Brown, Warden of the Decatur County Prison Branch of the Georgia Penal System. His petition for the writ alleges that Buxton's detention is illegal because: (1) after conviction he, as an indigent person, was not furnished counsel to file and prosecute an appeal in his behalf, (2) the panels from which he was required to select a jury to try his case were drawn by the trial judge from the traverse jury box in the office of the clerk of the superior court and not in the courtroom as required by law, (3) he was handcuffed and chained to another prisoner when brought into court for trial, and (4) the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict against him. On the hearing, and after applicant for the writ of habeas corpus had introduced his evidence, he was remanded to the custody of the respondent. The appeal is from that judgment. Held:
1. Respecting appellant's contention that he was not furnished counsel for appeal purposes, the evidence shows: Judge Lilly appointed Jack B. Collier, a member of the Thomas County Bar to represent the accused and there is nothing in the record showing or tending to show that he appointed him to represent Buxton only for a limited period of time or for a limited purpose. Collier appeared for and conducted the trial but did not file an appeal from the judgment of conviction. The contention that Collier was appointed to represent Buxton only through the trial of his case was raised for the first time in this petition for habeas corpus and after the expiration of more that fifteen months immediatey subsequent to the date of Buxton's conviction. On the hearing of the habeas corpus proceeding, Collier testified that it was his understanding that his appointment was to run for the trial only and that he had been advised by counsel for applicant that it is customary in Thomas County for appointed counsel to represent the accused only through the actual trial of his case. However, it does not appear from the record that collier notified either Judge Lilly or the accused that he was laboring under the impression that his appointment terminated on the conclusion of the trial and from the evidence given by Collier on the hearing of this habeas corpus proceeding, we think the trial judge was authorized to infer that Collier did not withdraw fron Buxton's case when he was convicted but was satisfied with the verdict and punishment imposed upon Buxton...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spencer v. Kemp
...array before the jurors were put upon him and his failure to do so amounts in law to a forfeiture of that right." Buxton v. Brown, 222 Ga. 564, 150 S.E.2d 636, 637 (1966). The court in Buxton cited in support of its holding one of its earlier decisions in which the court stated that an obje......
-
Davis v. State
...228 Ga. 117, 184 S.E.2d 150; Johnson v. Smith, 227 Ga. 611, 182 S.E.2d 101; Moore v. Dutton, 223 Ga. 585, 157 S.E.2d 267; Buxton v. Brown, 222 Ga. 564, 150 S.E.2d 636; Archer v. Grimes, 222 Ga. 8, 148 S.E.2d Only once before within my memory has this kind of situation arisen in this court, ......
-
Bolick v. State, 47563
...Court has wisely ruled that the advisability of appealing a judgment of conviction is for determination by counsel. Buxton v. Brown, Warden, 222 Ga. 564, 150 S.E.2d 636 and Blackmon v. Smith, Warden, 226 Ga. 849, 178 S.E.2d 176. A primary reason for this rule revolves around the possibility......
-
Brown v. Holland, 26903
...has a right to determine. Cobb v. State, 218 Ga. 10, 126 S.E.2d 231; Balkcom v. Roberts, 221 Ga. 339, 144 S.E.2d 524.' Buxton v. Brown, 222 Ga. 564(1), 150 S.E.2d 636.' Blackmon v. Smith, 226 Ga. 849, 178 S.E.2d 176. Under these facts and circumstances, we cannot say that the appellant was ......