Dodson v. State, 31332
| Decision Date | 08 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 31332,31332 |
| Citation | 229 S.E.2d 364,237 Ga. 607 |
| Parties | Donnie Wayne DODSON v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
William Ralph Hill, Jr., Lafayette, for appellant.
David N. Vaughan, Jr., Dist. Atty., Charles Crawford, Asst. Dist. Atty., Cartersville, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Donnie Wayne Dodson appeals from an armed robbery conviction and fifteen year sentence imposed by the Gordon Superior Court.
The evidence presented at trial authorized the jury to find that the defendant and his brother, who resembles the defendant drove into a service station in Gordon County in a white van on September 24, 1975. While the owner's wife was putting gas in the van, the defendant forced the owner at gunpoint to put $125 and the owner's 38 caliber pistol in a brown bag. As the two men fled in their van the wife noted the license tag number. The robbery was reported to the police and shortly thereafter a white van with the reported license number was stopped. A search of the car revealed a brown bag containing $125 and two guns, one of which was the owner's.
Later that same evening the owner saw the defendant and his brother at the county jail and identified them. At the defendant's trial he was identified by both the owner and his wife as the robber. The jury found the defendant guilty of armed robbery.
1. The defendant contends that the brown bag and its contents were taken from the van in an illegal search and seizure because no search warrant was obtained. There was probable cause to arrest the men in the van and probable cause to search the van for guns and the money. The evidence seized from the van was not inadmissible. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970).
2. The defendant agrues that the 'show-up' at the Gordon County jail at which the service station owner identified the defendant was so impermissibly suggestive as to taint the in-court identification. Under the totality of the circumstances we do not find the show-up to be impermissibly suggestive. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972).
3. Defendant enumerates as error the absence of counsel at the show-up. This was not error because adversary judicial criminal proceedings had not yet begun. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972). There having been no motion to suppress or objection to the identification testimony, any preliminary judicial determination required by Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967), was unnecessary here.
4. The owner of the service station and his wife identified the defendant as a participant in the robbery at a preliminary hearing and again at trial. At the preliminary hearing the victims were shown a picture of the brother. Apparently they were confused as to which brother was at the hearing and which one was in the picture. The defendant uses this confusion on the part of the elderly victims as a basis for arguing that the prosecution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Duhamel
...trial does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, see United States v. Decoster, 624 F.2d 196, 213 (D.C.Cir.1976); Dodson v. State, 237 Ga. 607, 609, 229 N.E.2d 364 (1976); People v. Lewis, 89 Ill.App.3d 840, 846, 45 Ill.Dec. 214, 412 N.E.2d 565 ...
-
Freeman v. State
...409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); Mercer v. State, 268 Ga. 856, 857(3), 493 S.E.2d 921 (1998); Dodson v. State, 237 Ga. 607, 608(2), 229 S.E.2d 364 (1976). See also Cooper v. State, 260 Ga. 549(2), 397 S.E.2d 705 5. Mercer v. State, supra at 857, 493 S.E.2d 921. 6. 466 U.S.......
-
Horton v. State
...right to counsel at a pre-indictment lineup. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411; Dodson v. State, 237 Ga. 607, 608, 229 S.E.2d 364. Moreover, under the exigencies of the circumstances of this case, we do not find the showup as being unnecessarily suggestive. The ......
-
Dennis v. McCrary, 31339
... ... at the time of probate in solemn form by reason of being without the jurisdiction of the state, proof of his signature may be made. Code § 113-602, as amended; Brown v. McBride, 129 Ga. 92(1), ... ...