Singleton v. State
| Decision Date | 06 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A89A1970,A89A1970 |
| Citation | 390 S.E.2d 648,194 Ga.App. 423 |
| Parties | SINGLETON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
C. Jackson Burch for appellant.
Spencer Lawton, Jr., Dist. Atty., for appellee.
After a bench trial, appellant was convicted on two counts of felony obstruction of an officer. (OCGA § 16-10-24(b).) The evidence adduced at trial authorized the court to find: that three police officers responded to a call about a disorderly person with a gun; that the first officer to arrive observed appellant with his hands in his pockets, acting in a disorderly manner; that appellant refused to take his hands from his pockets upon being requested to do so by the officer; that the second officer to arrive informed the first officer, in the presence of appellant, that a radio transmission had confirmed the existence of outstanding warrants for appellant's arrest; that appellant then ran into the house followed by the officers; that a struggle began when the officers attempted to apprehend appellant; that during the struggle a third officer arrived on the scene; that appellant struggled violently with the three officers, refusing to let them handcuff him; and that as a result of appellant's struggle two of the officers were injured.
1. A person is guilty of felony obstruction when he "knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer ... in the lawful discharge of his official duties by offering or doing violence to the person...." OCGA § 16-10-24(b). Appellant first contends that since the officers were not in possession of the warrants for his arrest, they were not in the lawful discharge of their duties. We do not agree. The officers were in the lawful discharge of their duties when they responded to the disorderly person call. The radio transmission, which confirmed the outstanding warrants, established the necessary probable cause to arrest appellant. See Paxton v. State, 160 Ga.App. 19(1), 285 S.E.2d 741 (1981). Since the officer had probable cause to arrest appellant, and the officer and appellant were made aware of the outstanding warrants for appellant's arrest, the court was authorized to find that appellant obstructed the officers in the lawful discharge of their duties.
2. In his second enumeration of error, appellant contends that since he was mistaken about whether there were warrants for his arrest, under OCGA § 16-3-5 he should not have been convicted. It is clear from appellant's argument that his concern was whether the officers had the lawful authority to arrest him. This was not a misapprehension of fact as contemplated by OCGA § 16-3-5 but was instead a misapprehension of law. Brown v. State, 163 Ga.App. 209(3), 294 S.E.2d 305 (1982). Jenga v. State, 166 Ga.App. 36(2), 303 S.E.2d 170 (1983).
3. All three of the officers testified about the violent nature of appellant's struggle during their attempt to arrest him. Accordingly, we find the evidence sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
4. Appellant's fourth enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in not ordering a forensic evaluation of his competency to stand trial and his competency at the time of the crime. Prior to the start of the trial, appellant's attorney moved to withdraw due to appellant's lack of cooperation. The trial court denied the motion, but agreed to closely monitor the evidence and entertain a motion for mistrial should the evidence warrant such a motion. Appellant testified at trial, and the court had an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harvey v. State
...which confirmed the outstanding warrants, established the necessary probable cause to arrest [Harvey]. [Cit.]" Singleton v. State, 194 Ga.App. 423(1), 390 S.E.2d 648 (1990). It is of no consequence that the officer later discovered that the validly issued bench warrant had been recalled. "[......
-
Wagner v. State, A92A1295
...225 S.E.2d 95; Smith, supra 84 Ga.App. at 82, 65 S.E.2d 709; see Vaughn v. State, 197 Ga.App. 561, 398 S.E.2d 836; Singleton v. State, 194 Ga.App. 423, 390 S.E.2d 648; Banks v. State, 187 Ga.App. 280, 282, 370 S.E.2d 38. As the only evidence of antisocial conduct by appellant prior to arres......
-
Flesche v. State, A01A2131.
...225 Ga.App. at 716(5),484 S.E.2d 758 (hostility toward attorneys does not necessarily indicate irrationality); Singleton v. State, 194 Ga.App. 423, 424(4), 390 S.E.2d 648 (1990) (lack of cooperation did not manifest incompetency); Jackson v. State, 180 Ga.App. 774, 776(1), 350 S.E.2d 484 (1......
-
Simpson v. State, A99A0321.
...of a defendant's competency to stand trial if evidence of incompetence manifests itself during the proceedings. Singleton v. State, 194 Ga.App. 423, 424(4), 390 S.E.2d 648 (1990). In this case, there is no evidence in the record that would have required the trial court to make a sua sponte ......