Landers v. Smith, 25701

• Decision Date: 09 April 1970
• Docket Number: No. 25701,25701
• Citation: 174 S.E.2d 427,226 Ga. 274
• Parties: Clifford A. LANDERS v. S. Lamont SMITH, Warden.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 427

174 S.E.2d 427

226 Ga. 274

Clifford A. LANDERS v. S. Lamont SMITH, Warden.

No. 25701.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 9, 1970.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Petitioner's main contention was not misstated by the judge in the habeas corpus proceedings below.

2. The court below correctly interpreted petitioner's contention as a question of law, rather than as a question of fact.

3. The practice of including prior convictions in the indictment and reading them to the jury before the determination of the issue of guilt or innocence in the crime charged, pursuant to Code Ann. § 27-2511 (Ga.L.1953, Nov.Sess. pp. 289, 290), violated neither petitioner's Federal nor his State Constitutional rights.

Clifford A. Landers, pro se.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Exec. Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles B. Merrill, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.

ALMAND, Chief Justice.

On March 11, 1966, petitioner was found guilty of violating the State narcotics law and was sentenced to ten years in prison.

On August 4, 1969, petitioner filed his petition for the writ of habeas corpus in Tatnall Superior Court. On September 25, 1969, a hearing was held on this petition and the writ was denied. Petitioner was remanded to the custody of the warden. From this decision, petitioner brings his appeal.

1. In petitioner's first enumeration of error, he alleges that the judge in the habeas corpus proceeding materially misstated his principal contention. In his brief, the petitioner states that his main contention in the habeas corpus proceeding was not that Georgia's second offense law was unconstitutional, but that the practice of reading a man's criminal record to the jury before the verdict in the principal case is rendered violates his rights under the Federal and State Constitutions. On page 6 of the transcript of the habeas corpus hearing, the following appears: 'The Court: What you're saying is that the evidence of the previous conviction should not have been listed on your indictment. Is that one thing? A. Yes, sir, or presented to the jury. The Court: And another is that even if it was listed, it shouldn't have been read to the jury, is that right? A. Yes, sir, and they had the arresting officers in each case up there to identify me as the same person.' On page 10 of the record, in the order of the judge denying the petition for habeas corpus, can be found the following: 'He (petitioner) stated that he was not attacking the Georgia previous offender law, that the only thing he was attacking was the way that it was put to the jury at the beginning of his trial.'

From these examinations of the rocord, it is obvious that petitioner's first enumeration of error is not meritorious.

2. Petitioner contends that the trial judge erroneously treated the question of whether or not the practices complained of had a prejudicial effect on the jury as a question of law, when it should have been treated as a question of fact. This contention is also without merit.

At no time in the hearing below did petitioner offer any evidence of any prejudice in his particular jury which resulted from the practice complained of. His whole attack is based on the idea that the practices complained of in division 3 of this opinion inevitably result in a biased and prejudiced jury. This is obviously a question of law and not a question of fact. Petitioner's second enumeration of error is not meritorious.

3. Petitioner's third enumeration of error contains the pivotal issue in this case. This enumeration attacks practices which have evolved in Georgia courts in the administration of the provisions of Code Ann. § 27-2511 (Ga.L.1953, Nov.Sess. pp. 289, 290). This Code section provides, in short, that anyone who has a prior conviction of a crime punishable by confinement and labor in the penitentiary, and who is subsequently convicted for another such crime, must receive the maximum sentence for the second such conviction. There are several full bench decisions of this court which hold that in order to sentence a prisoner according to this Code Section, the prior convictions relied on must be placed in the indictment and read to the jury before the principal issue of guilt or innocence is determined. It is this practice which the petitioner is attacking as a violation of his rights under stated provisions of the Federal and State Constitutions.

In Tribble v. State, 168 Ga. 699, 148 S.E. 593, the court held that the fact of the prior convictions must be charged in the indictment where a second conviction would affect the grade of the offense or require the imposition of a different punishment. In Kryder v. State, 212 Ga. 272, 91 S.E.2d 612, a full bench decision, it was held that the procedures complained of by the petitioner in this case related only to the procedure in the trial of a criminal case, and did not affect any vested principle or constitutional right of the defendant.

Thus it can be seen that full bench decisions of this court require that prior convictions be alleged in the indictment and read to the jury. Also, such decisions have held that this procedure does not violate any constitutional rights of the defendant.

But petitioner also avers that the procedure complained of violates rights guaranteed to him by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States...