Gates v. State

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GUNTER
• Citation: Gates v. State, 229 Ga. 796, 194 S.E.2d 412 (Ga. 1972)
• Decision Date: 04 December 1972
• Docket Number: No. 27250,27250
• Parties: Charles R. GATES v. The STATE.

Page 412

194 S.E.2d 412

229 Ga. 796

Charles R. GATES v. The STATE.

No. 27250.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 4, 1972.

Glenn Zell, atlanta, for appellant.

Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Morris H. Rosenberg, Joel M. Feldman, Carter Goods, Joseph J. Drolet, Arthur K. Bolton, Goode, Joseph J. Drolet, Arthur K. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton and David L. G. King, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

GUNTER, Justice.

The appellant here was convicted in the trial court for the offense of armed robbery and for two misdemeanor offenses. He received sentences totaling ten (10) years of confinement. He filed a motion for a new trial which was denied by the trial judge, and he has appealed from that judgment.

Four enumerated errors alleged to have been committed in the trial court are insisted upon here.

1. The first complaint is that the trial court overruled appellant's motion to suppress certain evidence on the ground that the police had no probable cause or underlying facts to make a warrantless search of an automobile in which appellant was apprehended, and the result of the warrantless search was the seizure of the evidence found in the automobile and sought to be suppressed.

The transcript shows that the appellant was in the automobile from which the items sought to be suppressed were taken. Some of the items seized were in plain view of the officer stopping the vehicle; they were items ordinarily used in the commission of robberies; and under these circumstances, in our opinion, the seizure of these items by the officer, though he had no warrant, was legally justified.

The overruling of the motion to suppress was not error.

2. Appellant's second complaint is that he was effectively denied assistance of counsel at a line-up conducted some six hours after he was taken into custody. Conceding that the appellant was effectively denied counsel at the line-up, several witnesses identified the appellant as having committed the armed robbery, their identifications were based on their seeing the appellant at the scene of the robbery, and their identifications were completely independent of any line-up. The record therefore fails to show harmful error that would warrant reversal of these convictions. See Carmichael v. State, 228 Ga. 834, 188 S.E.2d 495 (1972).

3. The third error enumerated complains of a portion of the court's charge to the jury with respect to transactions similar to the ones for which the appellant was indicted in this case. During the trial the appellant had taken the stand to give an unsworn statement and also for the purpose of cross examination by the district attorney. He admitted previous arrests on armed robbery charges. In this context we conclude that giving the charge complained of was not error. See Walker v. State, 226 Ga. 292, 174 S.E.2d 440 (1970).

4. During the sentencing...