Hornsby v. State
| Decision Date | 10 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 62254,62254 |
| Citation | 284 S.E.2d 630,159 Ga.App. 672 |
| Parties | HORNSBY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Franklin H. Thornton, LeGrange, for appellant.
Arthur E. Mallory, III, Dist. Atty., Harger W. Hoyt, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was indicted for the offense of escape in that "after having been convicted of [three] violations of municipal ordinances of the City of LaGrange, Georgia, ... [he did] intentionally escape from the West Georgia Medical Center, a place of lawful confinement." Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the offense charged and was sentenced to five years in prison. He appeals.
The pertinent facts are as follows: After his conviction for violation of certain municipal ordinances of the City of LaGrange, appellant was incarcerated in the City Jail of LaGrange and was in the custody of the LaGrange Police Department. While so incarcerated, appellant complained of back pains and was taken by a member of the LaGrange Police Department to the West Georgia Medical Center for treatment. Approximately four days after admittance to the medical center appellant walked out without anyone's consent. He was recaptured approximately three months later.
1. In several related enumerations of error, appellant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to show that he escaped from a "place of lawful confinement" within the meaning of Code Ann. § 26-2501. As previously noted, appellant was in the lawful custody of the LaGrange Police Department and incarcerated in that city's jail at the time he experienced the back pains necessitating medical attention. Appellant was accompanied by a police officer to the emergency room of the medical center. Following the administration of emergency treatment, appellant was guarded by another officer during the admittance process and was accompanied by this officer to his hospital room. After following appellant to the room, the officer left the medical center. From this point until his escape approximately four days later, no officer was actually assigned to or stationed at the medical center for the express purpose of guarding appellant.
While appellant testified that "I didn't feel that I was escaping because there was nobody there," he admitted that his sentence had not expired and that no one had given him permission to leave the center. Appellant further admitted that he was not released by the attending physicians or otherwise discharged from the center and that he did not pay the bill upon leaving because he "was under city care." In short, the evidence demonstrates that appellant left the medical center on his own volition because there was not a guard standing at the door to bar his escape.
Under these facts we find meritless appellant's contention that the medical center did not constitute a place of lawful confinement under Code Ann. § 26-2501. Appellant has cited no authority and we are aware of none which limits a place of lawful confinement to a prison or other correctional facility. In the instant case we conclude that at all times relevant to the incident in question appellant was in lawful confinement at the West Georgia Medical Center (Myers v. State, 143 Ga.App. 195, 237 S.E.2d 662 (1977)) and in the constructive custody of the City of LaGrange Police Department. See Holt v. State, 143 Ga.App. 438 (1), 238 S.E.2d 763 (1977); Bailey v. State, 146 Ga.App. 774 (1), 247 S.E.2d 588 (1978).
Accordingly, the indictment in the instant case was sufficient. Carter v. State, 155 Ga.App. 49 (1), 270 S.E.2d 233 (1980). Upon our review of the trial transcript and record, we find that any rational trior of fact could reasonably have found from the evidence adduced at trial proof of appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Stanley v. State, 156 Ga.App. 116, 274 S.E.2d 165 (1980).
2. Appellant also contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss the indictment. The motion to dismiss was based on the assertion that the indictment against appellant was returned solely upon the basis of the hearsay testimony of a law enforcement officer. First, the evidence presented at trial does not demand a finding that the indictment was returned wholly upon hearsay evidence. Secondly, the sufficiency of the legal evidence before a grand jury is not subject to inquiry. Buchanan v. State, 215 Ga. 791 (2), 113 S.E.2d 609 (1960); Hogan v. State, 140 Ga.App. 716 (2), 231 S.E.2d 802 (1976); Reaves v. State, 242 Ga. 542, 544 (2), 250 S.E.2d 376 (1978). Accordingly, this enumeration is without merit.
3. Appellant enumerates as error the trial court's denial of his motion for a continuance which was predicated on the basis that counsel did not have adequate time to prepare for trial and on the basis of an absent witness. Such motions address themselves to the sound discretion of the trial judge and this court will not interfere absent a clear showing of abuse of this discretion. Burnett v. State, 240 Ga. 681, 683 (1), 242 S.E.2d 79 (1978); Alderman v. State, 241 Ga. 496, 502 (2), 246 S.E.2d 642 (1978). Appellant asserts no facts to justify a determination by this court that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Clay
...purpose of investigating a theft offense, told to wait, and walked out without permission when left unattended); Hornsby v. State, 159 Ga.App. 672, 284 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1981) (holding, under predecessor version of Ga.Code § 16-10-52(a), that prisoner who was admitted to hospital for treatme......
-
Johnson v. State
...Secondly, the sufficiency of the legal evidence before a grand jury is not subject to inquiry. [Cits.]" Hornsby v. State, 159 Ga.App. 672, 673(2), 284 S.E.2d 630 (1981). See also Reaves v. State, 242 Ga. 542(2), 250 S.E.2d 376 4. In his fourth and fifth enumerations of error, appellant cont......
-
Couch v. State
...these findings, which are supported by the record, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for continuance. Edwards v. State;6 Hornsby v. State.7 2. Couch next asserts that the State failed to prove venue by showing that the theft of the motor vehicle and handgun took place in Whi......
-
State v. Chandler
..."lawful confinement" at the diversion center. Compare Hendrickson v. State, 159 Ga.App. 628, 284 S.E.2d 645 (1981); Hornsby v. State, 159 Ga.App. 672, 284 S.E.2d 630 (1981). However, there appears to be no reason in law or logic why appellee should not be considered as having been in the "l......