Robertson v. State
| Decision Date | 18 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. S06A0951.,S06A0951. |
| Citation | 280 Ga. 885,635 S.E.2d 138 |
| Parties | ROBERTSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Billy Ray Robertson, Hardwick, for Appellant.
Penny Alane Penn, Dist. Atty., Thomas David Lyles, Sandra Ann Partridge, Asst. Dist. Attys., Cumming; Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Paula Khristian Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Atlanta, for Appellee.
On March 9, 1995, Billy Ray Robertson was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to commit burglary, burglary, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, and felony murder. At sentencing, the trial court merged the conspiracy convictions with their substantive counterparts and sentenced defendant to life for felony murder, plus 20 consecutive years for armed robbery and an additional 20 consecutive years for burglary. Robertson appealed to this Court, and, in Robertson v. State, 268 Ga. 772, 493 S.E.2d 697 (1997), we affirmed his conviction. With regard to Robertson's sentence, however, we vacated his sentence for armed robbery only and remanded his case with specific instructions that the trial court merge the armed robbery conviction into the felony murder conviction.
On January 7, 2005, in Robertson's presence, the trial court re-sentenced Robertson in accordance with our opinion. Robertson contends, however, that his re-sentencing was improper because the trial court failed to appoint an attorney to represent him at the re-sentencing hearing. Because the trial court had no discretion in the matter and its re-sentencing of Robertson was a ministerial act, we affirm.
It is a well-established rule that a defendant has a right to appointed counsel at any critical stage of proceedings brought against him. See, e.g., Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977). It is equally established that sentencing, or re-sentencing, is such a critical stage at which a defendant is generally entitled to be present at the sentencing hearing and to be represented by counsel. Id. For example, in instances where a defendant's entire sentencing package has been vacated on appeal and, at resentencing, the trial court has full discretion to reconstruct the sentence and impose a more lenient punishment, the defendant retains a right to appointed counsel. Hall v. Moore, 253 F.3d 624 (11th Cir.2001). On the other hand, where the defendant's sentence is mandatory or fixed in such a way that, at resentencing, the trial court is without discretion, the resulting resentencing proceeding is purely ministerial, and it is unnecessary for the defendant to be present at the sentencing hearing or be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowery v. State
...Ga. 266, 347 S.E.2d 589 (1986)), and continues through all critical stages of the proceeding brought against him. Robertson v. State, 280 Ga. 885, 886, 635 S.E.2d 138 (2006). Assuming without deciding that the right to counsel encompasses the right to have reasonable notice of a deliberatin......
-
Gibson v. State
...Gibson is entitled to representation by counsel at any “critical stage of the proceedings,” including sentencing. Robertson v. State, 280 Ga. 885, 886, 635 S.E.2d 138 (2006). In Golden v. Newsome, 755 F.2d 1478, 1481 (11th Cir.1985), upon which our Supreme Court relied in Robertson,1 the El......
-
Robertson v. Chase
...denied certiorari. Robertson v. Georgia, 523 U.S. 1140 (1998). Robertson was not re-sentenced until January 7, 2005. Robertson v. State, 635 S.E.2d 138, 139 (Ga. 2006). The trial court imposed a new sentence in which the armed robbery count was merged into the felony murder count. Id. Petit......
-
Mcgruder v. the State.
...to be present at the sentencing hearing or be represented by counsel.(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Robertson v. State, 280 Ga. 885, 886, 635 S.E.2d 138 (2006). We hold that the court's resentencing here was purely ministerial and therefore could be performed in McGruder's absence. Se......
-
Death Penalty Law - Therese M. Day
...(2006). 3. 280 Ga. 884, 635 S.E.2d 137 (2006). 4. Id. at 884, 635 S.E.2d at 137. 5. Id. 6. Id. 7. Id., 635 S.E.2d at 137-38. 8. Id., 635 S.E.2d at 138 (citing State v. Shepherd Constr. Co., 248 Ga. 1, 3, 281 S.E.2d 151, 155 (1981); State v. Eubanks, 239 Ga. 483, 488, 238 S.E.2d 38, 42 (1977......
-
Death Penalty Law - Therese M. Day
...11. Id. at 151, 646 S.E.2d at 678. 12. 280 Ga. 884, 635 S.E.2d 137 (2006). 13. Wagner, 282 Ga. at 150, 646 S.E.2d at 678 (quoting Bailey, 280 Ga. at 885, 635 S.E.2d at 138). 14. Id. 15. Id. 16. Id. at 151, 646 S.E.2d at 678. 17. Id. 18. Id. 19. Id. 20. Id. 21. Id. 22. Id., 646 S.E.2d at 679......
-
A "critical" Question of State Law: Georgia's Ambiguous Treatment of Initial Appearance Hearings and Implications of Bail Reform
...(Ga. Ct. App. 2015) (holding that stages such as closing arguments and sentencing proceedings are critical); see also Robertson v. State, 635 S.E.2d 138, 139-40 (Ga. 2006) (discussing the history of sentencing and re-sentencing as a critical stage of a proceeding).54. See Robertson, 635 S.E......