Pitt v. State, 17946

• Decision Date: 24 July 1962
• Docket Number: No. 17946,17946
• Citation: 240 S.C. 557,126 S.E.2d 579
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Bennie G. PITT, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina and W. M. Manning, Superintendent, South Carolina State Penitentiary, Respondents.

Page 579

126 S.E.2d 579

240 S.C. 557

Bennie G. PITT, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina and W. M. Manning, Superintendent South Carolina State Penitentiary, Respondents.

No. 17946.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 24, 1962.

Bennie G. Pitt, Columbia, appellant, pro se.

Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., J. C. Coleman, Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen., Columbia, for respondent.

LEWIS, Justice.

The appellant was tried on May 30, 1961, in the Court of General Sessions at Charleston, South Carolina, without the assistance of counsel, and convicted of the offense of armed robbery. A sentence of fifteen (15) years was imposed, which he is now serving in the South Carolina State Penitentiary. No appeal was taken from his conviction, but appellant filed with the lower Court on December 16, 1961, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his present detention and restraint under the aforesaid sentence is unlawful and in violation of his constitutional rights under both the State and Federal Constitutions, and that he is entitled to be released from custody. The lower Court, after a hearing, issued an order denying the relief sought, and the matter is here on appeal from such order.

The petition of the appellant attacked his conviction and present detention on several grounds, but the only question for determination in this appeal is whether or not the sentence imposed on appellant is invalid because he was not represented by counsel.

It is admitted that appellant was not represented by counsel at his trial and that armed robbery is a non-capital offense.

There is no statutory requirement in this State that counsel be appointed to represent one charged with the commission of a non-capital offense, Section 17-507, 1952 Code of Laws of South Carolina; Shelton v. State of South Carolina, 239 S.C. 535, 123 S.E.2d 867; nor any requirement arising under the Constitution of the United States that one charged with such an offense in State court who is unable to procure counsel, must be furnished counsel by the State in every case, whatever the circumstances, but the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution does require that counsel be appointed to represent a defendant in a non-capital case in the State courts where the circumstances of the particular case are such that the furtherance of justice would be defeated if counsel were not provided. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595; Shelton v. State of South Carolina, supra, 239 S.C. 535, 123 S.E.2d 867.

The right to counsel may, however, be waived by a defendant, if intelligently and understandingly done. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461; Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. 155, 78 S.Ct. 191, 2 L.Ed.2d 167; Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70.

The record here shows that the defendant was approximately 30 years of age and had attended grammar school 'to the fifth grade' and had, after his discharge from military service, attended high school for one year under the Federal educational program available to veterans. He had travelled extensively throughout the United States, was a man of varied experience and above average intelligence. He had served approximately three years in the United States Army and had held several responsible jobs, some of them...