Law v. Smith
| Decision Date | 09 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 25698,25698 |
| Citation | 226 Ga. 298,174 S.E.2d 893 |
| Parties | Donald N. LAW v. S. Lamont SMITH, Warden. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Smith & Portman, Barnard M. Portman, Savannah, for appellant.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, B. Daniel Dubberly, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Glennville, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, William R. Childers, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Paragraph 3 of Rule 16 of the rules of this court, as amended (221 Ga. 884), relating to what the brief of an appellant shall contain, provides that Nowhere in the brief of the appellant, either in Part 1 or Part 2 is there any reference to the part or parts of the record and transcript of the evidence relied upon by the appellant in support of the grounds of his enumeration of errors. Accordingly, upon the authority of Hicks v. Maple Valley Corporation, 223 Ga. 577, 156 S.E.2d 904, none of the enumerated errors will be considered by this court and the appeal here from the overruling of the writ of habeas corpus is affirmed. See Waters v. Arrendale, 223 Ga. 617, 157 S.E.2d 289; Wallis v. Maddox, 223 Ga. 626, 157 S.E.2d 456, and Benefield v. Benefield, 224 Ga. 208(5), 160 S.E.2d 895.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant, in his motion for a rehearing contends that the judgment of affirmance in this case should be set aside because he was never furnished a copy of the record from which he could secure proper references to the page numbers of the record to be inserted in his brief; that he relies in his enumeration of errors solely on errors contained in the judge's order overruling and denying the writ of habeas corpus; that he has referred in his brief to the page numbers of the order itself which he contends are material, and that such references are therefore sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 16, and that he accepts the facts as found by the judge in the order appealed from, but contends merely that the judge failed to apply the proper legal principles to the facts as he found them. He says that this court can easily refer to the index to the record to determine the location therein of the order itself and from the references to the pages of the order itself, as contained in his brief, can find all the portions of the record necessary to decide the case on its merits.
An examination of the enumeration of errors does not support movant in these contentions. For example, the first error enumerated is that 'the court erred in ruling that the appellant's plea of guilty was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made.' The facts recited in the judge's order, which was written pursuant to the requirements of Section 3 of the Act approved April 18, 1967 (Ga.L.1967, p. 835, 836; Code § 50-127(9)) clearly authorize the conclusion reached, as complained of in this ground of enumerated error, and if this enumeration is to mean anything to this Court, it is necessary that the place or places in the record or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lineberger v. Williams
...and defendant's related objection and the corresponding giving of the charge appear in the record. Rule 15(c)(3). See Law v. Smith, 226 Ga. 298, 174 S.E.2d 893 (1970); Benefield v. Benefield, 224 Ga. 208, 209(5), 160 S.E.2d 895 (1968); Hicks v. Maple Valley Corp., 223 Ga. 577, 578, 156 S.E.......
-
Bailey v. Smith
...reading of the evidence in toto in order to ascertain if the contentions of the appellant are meritorious.' Law v. Smith, Warden, 226 Ga. 298, 299, 174 S.E.2d 893, 894. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. See Hicks v. Maple Valley Corporation, 223 Ga. 577, 156 S.E.2d 9......
-
Trull v. Smith
...to furnish to appellant's counsel a copy of the transcript of the record, there being no such requirement of the law. Law v. Smith, 226 Ga. 298, 300, 174 S.E.2d 893. Enumerated error 2 is without merit. 3. Enumerated error 3 contends that the use of the tax digest as the source of the juror......
-
Rewis v. Shaw
...[counsel] to easily ascertain the proper references to be included in his brief and written argument to this court." Law v. Smith, 226 Ga. 298, 300, 174 S.E.2d 893 (1970). The same applies to this court. Although this could be achieved more efficiently and less costly by simply retaining th......
-
Setting the Record Straight: a Proposal to Save Time and Trees
...a party or attorney is prohibited."). [9] Ga. Ct. App. R. 25(a)(1) (emphasis added). [10] Ga. Sup. Ct. R. 19 n.1. [11] See Law v. Smith, 226 Ga. 298, 300, 174 S.E.2d 893, 895 (1970) (observing that the requirement that transcripts be filed with the trial court exists, in part, "to afford lo......