Harper v. State, A97A0268
| Decision Date | 17 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. A97A0268,A97A0268 |
| Citation | 225 Ga.App. 510,484 S.E.2d 307 |
| Parties | , 97 FCDR 1583 HARPER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
James S. Harper, Jr., pro se.
Spencer Lawton, Jr., District Attorney, Jon Hope, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Defendant James Shivers Harper, Jr., a/k/a James S. Harper, was charged in an indictment with burglary (Count 1), possession of a tool for the commission of a crime, namely a crack pipe (Count 2), and two counts of "OBSTRUCTION" (of a law enforcement officer) (Counts 3 and 4). Representing himself, defendant entered a written guilty plea to all offenses. But defendant claimed he was in fact guilty "as to crack pipe only [and was] pleading because it's in [his] best interest." Defendant was sentenced to "9 years to serve ..." as to Count 1; "5 years conc." as to Count 2; "12 months conc." as to Count 3 and "12 mos. conc." as to Count 4. From the judgment of conviction and sentence entered on his negotiated guilty plea, defendant brings this pro se appeal. Held:
1. Defendant first complains that his guilty plea was not entered into freely and voluntarily because he "did not receive adequate notice of the offense to which he plead [sic]." Specifically, he argues that he did not receive " 'real notice' of the true nature of the charge against [him,]" regarding possession of a crack pipe as a tool for the commission of a crime.
The form for defendant's guilty plea shows he wrote "Yes" in response to whether he knew the offenses for which he was charged; whether he understood that the maximum possible penalty was 27 years; whether he understood that, by pleading guilty, he was giving up: "the right to hear the evidence against [him] and the right to confront [his] accusers; the right to be represented by a lawyer at trial; the right to testify and offer evidence on [his] own behalf; the right to subpoena [his] own witnesses; the privilege against self incrimination; and the presumption of innocence" and whether he understood the terms of the State's offer. After specifying that defendant was charged with "burglary, possession of a crack pipe, ... and two counts of misdemeanor obstruction," the State's attorney offered a negotiated sentence of "nine years to serve," for burglary, and "concurrent time on everything else." In open court, in response to direct questioning by the trial court, defendant twice affirmed he understood he was "charged with the following offenses: Burglary in count one, possession of a tool for the commission of a crime, which is the crack pipe, ... count two, count three is obstruction of a misdemeanor nature, and count four is obstruction of a misdemeanor nature, do you understand that?"
In the case sub judice, the trial court apprised the defendant of the offenses of which he was charged, enumerated and explained in detail the rights which defendant would be giving up if he pleaded guilty and the other consequences of such a plea, and carefully inquired whether he understood those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hammons, A01A1583.
...he should have raised the issue during the hearing. Since he failed to do so, he cannot now complain. See Harper v. State, 225 Ga.App. 510, 512(2), 484 S.E.2d 307 (1997) (by intelligently and voluntarily entering a guilty plea, a defendant waives all defenses known and unknown). But even if......
-
England v. State, A98A0442.
...that she committed the crimes to which she pled guilty satisfy us that her plea was voluntarily made. See Harper v. State, 225 Ga.App. 510, 511, 484 S.E.2d 307 ( 1997); Johns v. State, 223 Ga.App. 553, 554(1), 479 S.E.2d 388 The unavailability of England's own witnesses when her case was ca......
-
Farist v. State, A01A0647.
...v. State, 232 Ga.App. 690, 693(2), 503 S.E.2d 576 (1998). Such a waiver includes all defenses to the indictment. Harper v. State, 225 Ga.App. 510, 512(2), 484 S.E.2d 307 (1997). This enumeration is 3. We construe Farist's fourth enumeration of error as attacking the validity of his sentence......
- State v. Allmond, A97A0186
-
Criminal Law - Franklin J. Hogue and Laura D. Hogue
...O.C.G.A. Sec. 17-10-6.1 (1997). 401. Id. Sec. 42-8-66 (Supp. 1998). 402. 225 Ga. App. at 509-10, 484 S.E.2d at 306-07. 403. Id. at 510, 484 S.E.2d at 307. 404. 233 Ga. App. 483, 504 S.E.2d 542 (1998). 405. Fleming v. State, No. S98G1795, 1999 WL 982975 (Ga. Nov. 1, 1999). 406. Id. at *1. 40......