Smith v. State, 20086
| Decision Date | 11 July 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 20086,20086 |
| Citation | 104 S.E.2d 444,214 Ga. 314 |
| Parties | Joe SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Alphene W. Dowell, Aaron Kravitch, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Sol. Gen., Sylvan A. Garfunkel, James F. Glass, Jack H. Usher, Asst. Sols. Gen., Savannah, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Joe Smith was indicted in Chatham County for murder. He entered a plea of guilty in open court before the jury had been sworn or impaneled, and asked the court to impose sentence upon said plea as provided by law, whereupon the Judge of the Superior Court entered the following order: 'The court permits the plea to be offered and filed, but refuses to sentence said defendant upon said plea and directs that he file his plea before a jury and stand trial before a jury.' The bill of exceptions recites that the defendant refused to change his plea, and excepted to the action of the court in directing him to change his plea and to submit to trial by a jury, and assigns error thereon as being contrary to law and contrary to the statute of Georgia (Ga.L.1956, p. 737, Code, Ann.Supp. § 27-2528), providing for the filing of a plea of guilty in capital felony cases, and for the trial judge, in his discretion, to impose a life sentence without the recommendation of a jury in cases not founded solely upon circumstantial evidence, and also contrary to named sections of the Federal and State Constitutions. The defendant then filed a plea in abatement, in which he set forth that it was the legal duty of the court to have accepted his plea of guilty and to have sentenced him thereon, and that an attempted further trial before a jury would be null and void and should be abated. The trial court permitted the plea in abatement to be filed, but overruled the same, and to this ruling the plaintiff in error also excepts on the grounds that the action of the court was contrary to law and contrary to designated sections of the Federal and State Constitutions. Held:
1. The record in this court discloses that the defendant declined to comply with the order of the court to withdraw his plea of guilty, but fails to reveal that any trial before a jury has taken place, or that the defendant has been convicted of the crime alleged in the indictment, or that any final judgment or sentence has been entered. In order to obtain in this court a reversal of a judgment of which complaint is made, the burden is upon the plaintiff in error to show not only error, but injury. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kitchens v. State, 23059
...of the Code section. Gilbert v. Tippens, 183 Ga. 497(2), 188 S.E. 699; Martin V. Green, 188 Ga. 444, 4 S.E.2d 137; Smith v. State, 214 Ga. 314(2), 104 S.E.2d 444; Levy v. Logan, 98 Ga.App. 584, 106 S.E.2d 185; Besco Corporation v. Buice, 99 Ga.App. 528(1), 109 S.E.2d 88. If it be assumed th......
-
Byram v. State Highway Dept.
...§ 6-701.' Price v. Stewart, 209 Ga. 339(2), 72 S.E.2d 459. See also Gilbert v. Tippens, 183 Ga. 497(2), 188 S.E. 699.' Smith v. State, 214 Ga. 314(2), 104 S.E.2d 444, 445. Accordingly, the main bill of exceptions must be dismissed. The main bill of exceptions being dismissed the cross bill ......