Phillips v. State
| Decision Date | 07 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 32073,32073 |
| Citation | 238 Ga. 616,234 S.E.2d 527 |
| Parties | Wilbert PHILLIPS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Glaze, Glaze, McNally & Glaze, Kirby A. Glaze, Jonesboro, for appellant.
William H. Ison, Dist. Atty., Jack T. Wimbish, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Jonesboro, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Susan V. Boleyn, Staff Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellant was charged in a three-count indictment with robbing the same convenience store cashier at gunpoint twice within a one-month period and with shooting a store employee during the course of the second robbery. He was convicted on all three counts, receiving a sentence of 20 years for the first armed robbery, life imprisonment for the second, and eight years for the aggravated assault, all to be served consecutively. The State's case was based on the eyewitness testimony of the two victims. In this appeal appellant enumerates seven alleged errors.
1. The first enumeration of error involves the rejection of appellant's challenge to the array of the jury, in which he asserted that a deputy sheriff entered into the courtroom in the presence of the prospective jurors, carrying the handcuffs and chain which had been used to secure appellant and other prisoners on their trip to the courthouse from the jail. The handcuffs and chain were removed from the prisoners outside the courtroom and outside the presence of the jury and then, following the prisoners' entry, were carried in by the deputy and placed under a seat. Appellant's claim that the handcuffs and chain were carried in an ostentatious manner or rattled so as to draw attention were not supported by the testimony at the hearing on this motion. The trial court therefore did not commit error in denying the challenge. See Brand v. Wofford, 230 Ga. 750(6), 199 S.E.2d 231 (1973), citing Starr v. State, 209 Ga. 258(5), 71 S.E.2d 654 (1952).
2. The second enumeration of error concerns the denial of a pre-trial motion to suppress identification testimony. The evidence does not indicate that the pre-trial identifications of appellant by the victims, first from a series of photographs and then from a lineup, were unnecessarily suggestive or that there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401; Yancey v. State, 232 Ga. 167, 169, 205 S.E.2d 282 (1974); Smith v. State, 236 Ga. 5, 8, 222 S.E.2d 357 (1976). Moreover, the victims' view of appellant at the time of their original confrontation was shown to be the independent basis for their in-court identifications. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); Mathis v. State, 231 Ga. 401(6), 202 S.E.2d 73 (1973). The second enumeration of error is therefore without merit.
3. Appellant enumerates as error the denial of his pro se motion to continue the trial for 30 days to allow him to obtain alternate counsel and the denial of his pro se motion for mistrial in which he again complained of his legal representation. The record does not indicate that appellant's retained counsel provided him inadequate representation, either in advising him to accept two concurrent six-year terms in return for a guilty plea (which offer he did not accept) or in any other respect. These enumerations are also without merit. See Mitchell v. State, 136...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waugh v. State
...up by appellant himself in opening statement. Todd v. State, 261 Ga. 766, 769(3), 410 S.E.2d 725 (1991). See also Phillips v. State, 238 Ga. 616, 617(4), 234 S.E.2d 527 (1977). Accordingly, this enumeration of error is without 4. The trial court's failure to charge the jury on the legal pri......
-
Davis v. State
...of acts connected together' or (3) on a series of acts 'constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.' " Thus, in Phillips v. State, 238 Ga. 616, 618, 234 S.E.2d 527, involving robbery of the same convenience store cashier twice within one month, the Supreme Court held: "In view of the fac......
-
Whisenhunt v. State
...only where the offenses have been 'joined solely on the ground that they are of the same or similar character.' " Phillips v. State, 238 Ga. 616, 618(5), 234 S.E.2d 527; Coats v. State, 234 Ga. 659, 662, 217 S.E.2d 260, Under the test of Haisman, supra, it is obvious that the acts of the de......
-
Roberts v. State
...From an examination of the record we conclude that the photographic arrays were not impermissibly suggestive. See Phillips v. State, 238 Ga. 616, 234 S.E.2d 527 (1977). 9. At a line-up involving the appellant's co-defendant neither of the prostitutes could identify the co-defendant. The app......