Shoemake v. Whitlock
| Decision Date | 08 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 26038,26038 |
| Parties | Tracy SHOEMAKE v. J. W. WHITLOCK, Warden. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Glenn Zell, Atlanta, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This appeal is from the denial of the writ of habeas corpus by the Judge of the Superior Court of Coweta County. The applicant for the writ alleged that he was indicted and convicted of burglary on two counts on March 12, 1969 and was sentenced to five years on each count to run concurrently. The enumerations of error all assert that instructions given by the trial court to the jury during the trial of this case were erroneous and that the applicant was thereby denied due process of law under the State and Federal Constitutions. Held:
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1967 provides: Ga.L.1967, pp. 835, 836; Code Ann. § 50-127(1).
In this case the appellant contends that he has been denied due process of law under the State and Federal Constitutions (Code §§ 1-815, 2-108) because of erroneous instructions given by the trial judge to the jury. The question presented is, 'Can these questions now be raised in a petition for the writ of habeas corpus alleging a denial of due process of law under the State and Federal Constitutions?' We think not.
Due process of law implied the administration of laws which apply equally to all persons according to established rules and which are 'not violative of the fundamental principles of private right, by a competent tribunal having jurisdiction of the case and proceeding upon notice and hearing.' Frank v. State, 142 Ga. 741, 747, 83 S.E. 645; Arthur v. State, 146 Ga. 827(1), 92 S.E. 637; Chatterton v. Dutton, 223 Ga. 243, 245, 154 S.E.2d 213. Consequently where one indicted for burglary has had full opportunity, under the Constitution and laws of the State, to defend his case in the courts of the State having jurisdiction thereof, in person, by attorney, or both, according to established constitutional rules of procedure he has been afforded due process of law under the State and Federal constitutions, which provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Frank v. State, supra.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holloway v. McElroy
...not raise the burden-shifting issue on his appeal, he has waived the right to raise it on habeas corpus. See, e.g., Shoemake v. Whitlock, 226 Ga. 771, 177 S.E.2d 677 (1970). However, Holloway's trial occurred on May 1, 1975, prior to our decision in State v. Moore, 237 Ga. 269, 227 S.E.2d 2......
-
Smith v. Smith, Civ. A. No. 14304
...County. Relief was denied and petitioner appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court which affirmed the lower court in Shoemake v. Whitlock, 226 Ga. 771, 177 S.E.2d 677 (1970), on the ground that the issue was not one properly raised by habeas corpus. Exhaustion of state remedies is therefore suf......
-
Westbrook v. Zant
...not raise the burden-shifting issue on his appeal, he has waived the right to raise it in habeas corpus. See, e.g., Shoemake v. Whitlock, 226 Ga. 771, 177 S.E.2d 677 (1970). However, Holloway's trial occurred on May 1, 1975, prior to our decision in State v. Moore, 237 Ga. 269, 227 S.E.2d 2......
-
Parrish v. Hopper
...at all on habeas, and that in any event Parrish waived this point by failing to object at trial. It is true that Shoemake v. Whitlock, 226 Ga. 771, 177 S.E.2d 677 (1970) stated that jury charges could not be challenged on habeas corpus; but I do not believe that any member of the court thin......