Molignaro v. Balkcom
| Decision Date | 08 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 23004,23004 |
| Citation | 143 S.E.2d 748,221 Ga. 150 |
| Parties | Henry v. MOLIGNARO v. R. P. BALKCOM, Jr., Warden. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. There was no violation of due process in the refusal to appoint legal counsel for the petitioner at the commitment hearing.
2. The evidence was conflicting upon the issue of denial of counsel to the petitioner in the superior court, and it amply supports the finding adverse to the petitioner.
Sullivan, Herndon & Smith, John J. Sullivan, W. Lance Smith, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Peyton S. Hawes, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, B. Daniel Dubberly, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Glennville, for defendant in error.
We review here a judgment adverse to a petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Henry A. Molignaro filed his petition in the City Court of Reidsville against R. P Balkcom, Jr., warden of the Georgia State Prison, alleging that his confinement was illegal because he was denied the benefit of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The respondent's answer denied the material allegations of the petition. After a hearing, an order was entered remanding the petitioner to the custody of the warden, dismissing the petition, and quashing the writ. The petitioner excepts to that judgment.
Upon the habeas corpus trial the evidence was undisputed that at the commitment hearing the petitioner had requested the appointment of legal counsel but that it was refused by the statement of the judge that 'he would take care of it in court,' referring either 'to the county or superior court.'
However, the evidence was in sharp conflict as to what had transpired in the Superior Court of Muscogee County upon petitioner's arraignment. He testified that he there told the judge he wanted a lawyer but that none was provided him, and that he did not understand he was pleading guilty. On the other hand the solicitor general who represented the State upon that occasion testified that the petitioner was then advised of his constitutional rights concerning legal counsel, that he did not request legal counsel, that he intelligently and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to the charge, and that none of his constitutional rights was violated.
1. Petitioner was not denied the right of counsel by reason of events transpiring at the commitment hearing. This right, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed. 799), is that 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. * * *' (Emphasis ours.) Code § 1-806.
While this court has not rendered a decision as to whether this right to counsel extends to a preliminary commitment hearing, the Court of Appeals of this State has decided this question. In Blake v. State, 109 Ga.App. 636, 137 S.E.2d 49, that court considered the nature of our Georgia preliminary commitment procedure and extensively reviewed the leading decisions upon the constitutional issues involved. It held that in Georgia the preliminary commitment hearing . The court further pointed out that in Georgia 'the preliminary * * * hearing is for the purpose of determining whether there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allred v. State, 43745
...guilty plea.)3 Ronzzo v. Sigler, 235 F.Supp. 839 (Neb.D.C.1964); Montgomery v. State, 176 So.2d 331 (Fla.1965); Molignaro v. Balkcom, 221 Ga. 150, 143 S.E.2d 748 (1965); State v. Atkins, 195 Kan. 182, 403 P.2d 962 (1965); Portis v. State, 195 Kan. 313, 403 P.2d 959 (1965); State v. Vogel, 4......
-
Scarbrough v. Dutton
...the effect that the commitment hearing in Georgia "is not inherently a critical stage of a criminal proceeding," citing Molignaro v. Balkcom, 221 Ga. 150, 143 S.E.2d 748, and Blake v. State, 109 Ga.App. 636, 137 S.E.2d 49, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 924, 85 S.Ct. 281, 13 L.Ed.2d 337, and see Ke......
-
Kerr v. Dutton
...492; Blake v. State, 1964, 109 Ga.App. 636, 137 S.E.2d 49, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 924, 85 S.Ct. 281, 13 L.Ed.2d 337; Molignaro v. Balkcom, 1965, 221 Ga. 150, 143 S.E.2d 748; Smith v. Fuller, 1967, 223 Ga. 673, 157 S.E.2d 447.1 And this Court has recently held that an incarcerated defendant ......
-
Molignaro v. Smith
...right to counsel had been violated. He pursued his application to the Supreme Court of Georgia without success. See Molignaro v. Balkcom, 1965, 221 Ga. 150, 143 S.E.2d 748. Molignaro then sought habeas relief in the federal district court. He contended that he had not knowingly waived couns......