Hendricks v. Stynchcombe
| Decision Date | 17 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 37788,37788 |
| Citation | 248 Ga. 171,281 S.E.2d 612 |
| Parties | HENDRICKS v. STYNCHCOMBE, Sheriff, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert L. Whatley, Atlanta, for Tyrone B. Hendricks.
Joe Drolet, Dist. Atty., Atlanta, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., for Leroy Stynchcombe, Sheriff, et al.
Petitioner Tyrone B. Hendricks, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to serve twenty years in the penitentiary. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in Hendricks v. The State, 157 Ga.App. 715, 278 S.E.2d 453 (1981). Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied in April, 1981. We granted his application to appeal the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.
Petitioner's sole enumeration of error is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial in that his attorney refused him the opportunity to take the witness stand and testify in his own behalf. Petitioner avers that, had he been permitted to, he would have testified that he had conspired with the victim of the armed robbery to steal items from the Majik Market store; this, he contends, would have proved that he was not guilty of armed robbery, but guilty only of theft by taking and conspiracy.
Petitioner states that his attorney refused to allow him to testify because (1) "the closing argument was more important than (petitioner's) testimony" and (2) the attorney feared petitioner's history of prior convictions might come to light on cross-examination. Petitioner complains, however, that his right to closing argument was lost when his attorney attempted to introduce certain testimony at trial; further, petitioner asserts that he was willing to explain his prior convictions to the jury and to demonstrate to them that he had "changed."
At the hearing on the petition for habeas corpus, the court questioned petitioner's attorney at some length. The attorney admitted the right to closing argument was lost because he attempted to introduce certain testimony which would, allegedly, have cast doubt on the honesty of the proprietor of the Majik Market petitioner was convicted of robbing. Petitioner's attorney testified that he, nonetheless, continued to "strongly" advise petitioner to not take the witness stand "in view of lengthy prior record of crimes which ... had some similarity to armed robbery." The attorney testified that petitioner's prior record consisted of one conviction for armed robbery, two convictions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tanthongsack v. State
...amendment privilege and that, after conferring with counsel, he elected not to take the stand in his own defense. Hendricks v. Stynchcombe, 248 Ga. 171, 281 S.E.2d 612 (1981). 3. Appellant was identified as the triggerman by an eyewitness. The credibility of the eyewitness' testimony was fo......