Hobbs v. State, 29834

• Decision Date: 11 September 1975
• Docket Number: No. 29834,29834
• Citation: 218 S.E.2d 769,235 Ga. 8
• Parties: Jimmy Charles HOBBS et al. v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 769

218 S.E.2d 769

235 Ga. 8

Jimmy Charles HOBBS et al. v. The STATE.

No. 29834.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 11, 1975.

Harold E. Martin, Jackson, for appellants.

Edward E. McGarity, Dist. Atty., Kenneth R. Waldrep, Asst. Dist. Atty., McDonough, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Kirby G. Atkinson, Staff Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.

INGRAM, Justice.

This is an appeal in an armed robbery case from the Superior Court of Butts County following the denial of a motion for new trial in that court. The appellants, Jimmy Charles Hobbs and Donald LaRue Parker, were jointly indicted and tried with Eddie Junior Woodruff and, after being found guilty by a jury, appellants were sentenced to a prison term of 20 years.

Appellants' appointed counsel on appeal notified this court, after a careful study of the trial transcript, that he had concluded there were no reversible errors in the trial and it would be pointless to pursue an appeal. However, in order to protect appellants' right to appeal their convictions, counsel filed an enumeration of errors with supporting brief in this court urging two grounds for reversal of the trial court's judgment. See, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.

The two issues raised in this appeal are that the trial court erred in overruling appellants' motion to suppress evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure; and the trial court also erred in overruling appellants' motion to suppress the evidence of an in-custody identification of appellants.

The facts of this case are fully reported in Woodruff v. State, 233 Ga. 840, 213 S.E.2d 689, where the appeal of the codefendant, Eddie Junior Woodruff, was considered and decided by this court. Those facts need not be restated here for consideration of the issues involved in this appeal. However, one of the issues in the present case relates to an in-custody identification of appellants which was not involved in the Woodruff case.

The victims of the robbery were two adult unmarried sisters who lived alone on a farm in Butts County. They were robbed at gunpoint and physically abused during the course of the robbery. Two Butts County law enforcement officers arrived at the scene approximately 10 minutes after the robbery occurred. The sisters gave the officers a description of an automobile that had been by the house shortly before the robbery and a description of two of the suspects involved in it.

After some difficulty, the officers apprehended all three suspects and carried them back to the victims' home. All three suspects were seated in the rear seat of the police car. The two sisters looked in the car and identified appellants but they could not identify Woodruff. The identification of appellants by the two sisters was positive and...