Smith v. Ault, 27769
| Decision Date | 13 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 27769,27769 |
| Parties | John Thomas SMITH v. Allen AULT, Warden. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John Thomas Smith, pro se.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, William F. Bartee, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
John Thomas Smith filed a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. He is serving a sentence of two years for burglary and four years for possession of burglary tools. He appeals from the judgment denying him relief, and remanding him to the custody of the respondent.
1. The offenses of burglary and possessing burglary tools are separate and distinct, and an accused may be convicted of both offenses, even though they are committed in the same transaction. Shelly v. State, 107 Ga.App. 736(1), 131 S.E.2d 135.
2. Where the offenses of burglary and possessing burglary tools are committed in the same transaction, an indictment is not illegal because it contains a count charging burglary and a count charging the possession of burglary tools. Compare Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 74, 179 S.E.2d 76.
3. It is within the discretion of the trial judge to impose consecutive sentences for separate offenses. Code Ann. § 27-2510 (Ga.L.1964, p. 494).
4. There is no merit in the appellant's contention that he should be credited on his sentences for the time he was at liberty on bond while his conviction was appealed. Code Ann. § 27-2505 (Ga.L.1965, p. 230).
5. There is no merit in the appellant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his retained counsel did not petition the Court of Appeals for a rehearing of the adverse decision of his case in that court, and did not file petition for certiorari to this court. As to this contention the habeas corpus judge was authorized to find from the evidence on the hearing that: The appellant's retained counsel was not paid for his services in filing an appeal, but he did file such an appeal. Counsel was unable to reach the appellant at the address he had given counsel to inform him of the adverse decision. However, counsel would have filed motion for rehearing in the Court of Appeals, and petition for certiorari to this court, if he had thought that he had meritorious grounds for such motion and petition.
6. There is no merit in the appellant's contention that he was denied the right of an appeal from his conviction. See Smith v. State, 122 Ga.App. 98, 176 S.E.2d 284.
7. The appellant asserts that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baxter v. State
...an indictment is not illegal because it contains a count charging burglary and a count charging the possession of burglary tools.' Smith v. Ault, 230 Ga. 433(1, 2), 197 S.E.2d The illegal possession of cocaine and the illegal sale of cocaine are separate crimes as a matter of law, but since......
-
Sutton v. State
...with intent to rape).19 Butler v. State , 130 Ga.App. 469, 477, 203 S.E.2d 558 (1973) (emphasis supplied); see also Smith v. Ault , 230 Ga. 433, 433, 197 S.E.2d 348 (1973) ; Shelly v. State , 107 Ga.App. 736, 737, 131 S.E.2d 135 (1963).20 See supra note 7 & accompanying text.21 See supra no......
-
Davis v. Thomas
...v. Balkcom, 245 Ga. 492(3), 265 S.E.2d 596 (1980); McClure v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 45, 48(3), 214 S.E.2d 503 (1975); Smith v. Ault, 230 Ga. 433, 434(7), 197 S.E.2d 348 (1973). The majority acknowledges these well-established principles, but nevertheless holds that it was error to deny Davis' mot......
-
McCorquodale v. Stynchcombe
...to effective assistance of counsel does not apply to a habeas corpus proceeding which is not a criminal case." Smith v. Ault, 230 Ga. 433, 434(7), 197 S.E.2d 348 (1973); Wayman v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 2, 189 S.E.2d 74 (1972). But, here, appellant was represented by competent counsel, and the c......