State v. Houston
Decision Date | 02 July 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 29901,29901 |
Citation | 234 Ga. 721,218 S.E.2d 13 |
Parties | The STATE v. Otis Willie HOUSTON. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., R. David Petersen, gordon H. Miller, Asst. Dist. Attys., Atlanta, for appellant.
B. L. Spruell, Atlanta, for appellee.
Certiorari was granted in this case to review the holding of the Court of Appeals in State v. Houston, 134 Ga.App. 36, 213 S.E.2d 139. On July 23, 1974, otis Willie Houston was indicted for the offense of robbery. Prior to indictment, on July 15, 1974, a preliminary hearing was held and as a result thereof, the defendant was bound over to the grand jury.
The decision of the Court of Appeals states (Hn. 2): The opinion thereafter is based on the proposition that any preliminary hearing without counsel voids a subsequent indictment.
This case does not involve an unlawful waiver of the commitment hearing as did Manor v. State, 221 Ga. 866, 148 S.E.2d 305. Nor does this case involve the failure to hold a commitment hearing as was the situation in Phillips v. Stynchcombe, 231 Ga. 430, 202 S.E.2d 26. On the contrary, this case involves the question of whether a commitment hearing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding, the effect of holding a commitment hearing where the defendant is not represented by counsel and whether an accused may waive the right to counsel at such a commitment hearing.
The decision of the Court of Appeals properly held that a defendant may competently and intelligently waive a constitutional right of counsel.
In Phillips, supra, it was held:
Code § 27-210 requires that every officer arresting under a warrant shall exercise reasonable diligence in bringing the person arrested before a magistrate for hearing within 72 hours of arrest, and Code § 27-212 requires that those arrested without a warrant be formally charged within 48 hours after arrest.
In Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54, the Supreme Court held:
Thus, there is no material difference in the prior holdings of this court and the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Gerstein v. Pugh, supra. See also Jones v. State, 232 Ga. 771, 775, 208 S.E.2d 825, and citations.
The Supreme Court then held in Gerstein that under Florida procedure the probable cause hearing was not a critical phase in the prosecution that would require appointed counsel. The distinctions between Florida's procedure and that of Alabama, dealt with in Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387, was then dealt with. It was held:
A comparison of the above holding with Chapter 27-4 of the Georgia Code, as amended, requires a holding that in Georgia a commitment hearing is a critical stage of the criminal proceedings and that the defendant is entitled to counsel.
The failure to provide counsel, however, does not void further proceedings in the case and, as was held in Coleman v. Alabama, supra, '(O)n the record it cannot be said whether or not petitioners were otherwise prejudiced by the absence of counsel at the preliminary hearing . . . The test to be applied is whether the denial of counsel at the preliminary hearing was harmless error . . . We accordingly vacate the petitioner's convictions and remand the case to the Alabama courts for such proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion as they may deem appropriate to determine whether such denial of counsel was harmless error . . . and therefore whether the conviction should be reinstated or a new trial ordered.'
The effect of a void 'probable cause' hearing is to make the detention under such hearing illegal. Under decisions exemplified by Stynchcombe v. Hardy, 228 Ga. 130, 184 S.E.2d 356, the legality of such confinement may be tested by habeas corpus petition. Such illegal confinement, however, will not preclude action by the grand jury.
Accordingly, it is now well settled that illegal detention (without a valid probable cause hearing) does not preclude indictment by the grand jury. It is equally well settled that an illegal arrest or detention does not void a subsequent conviction, and that the failure to provide counsel at a probable cause hearing may not be raised after conviction by petitioners for writ of habeas corpus.
This case, for the first time, raises the question of whether a defendant can be placed on trial after indictment where counsel was not appointed on the probable cause hearing without providing the defendant with a second probable cause hearing.
As was held in Coleman v. Alabama, supra, it is only where harmful error has occurred during the trial that a conviction will be set aside. In the present case there has been no trial and accordingly, no harm could be demonstrated at the pretrial hearing of the defendant's motion.
That part of the judgment of the Court of Appeals which holds that a preliminary hearing is a critical stage in the criminal prosecution in Georgia is affirmed; however, that part of the jdugment of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment of the trial court quashing the indictment and requiring a second commitment hearing is reversed.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
All the Justices concur except UNDERCOFLER, P.J., and JORDAN and HALL, JJ., who dissent.
I fully agree with the majority's conclusion that a preliminary hearing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding in Georgia and that the defendant is entitled to counsel at that hearing unless there is a waiver. The difficulty I have with the majority opinion is that it authorizes the prosecution of the case to go forward without pointing out the serious risk of reversal that may result if there is a conviction.
The majority opinion does acknowledge that the failure to provide counsel to an indigent defendant, where there is no waiver, will require a new trial if the absence of counsel causes harm to the defendant. See, also, Hunt v. Hopper, 232 Ga. 53, 55, 205 S.E.2d 303. I would add that there is always a very real possibility, where counsel has been denied at a preliminary hearing, for prejudice to ensue in the conduct of the defense at a subsequent trial. See Hightower v. State, 135 Ga.App. 92, 217 S.E.2d 325.
If the denial of counsel at a preliminary hearing causes prejudice to the defendant at a subsequent trial, resulting in conviction, I believe a reversal is required. My conclusion is grounded upon the reasoning of Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387, and the Georgia Commitment Statutes. A preliminary hearing is an adversary proceeding and 'the guiding hand of counsel' is one of the basic ingredients of any fair adversary hearing. To...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fleming v. Zant
... ... OWENS, Chief Judge: ... Pursuant to laws passed by Congress giving a convicted state prisoner the legal right to apply to this United States District Court for a writ of habeas corpus "only on the ground that he is in state custody in ... Houston, 234 Ga. 721, 218 S.E.2d 13 (1975), the three-months-after-indictment hearing arranged for by agreement of counsel for the purpose of discovery was ... ...
-
Davis v. State
... ... The trial court refused to grant relief, and error is enumerated thereon ... State v. Houston, 234 Ga. 721, 218 S.E.2d 13 held that the commitment hearing provided ... for by our statutes is a critical stage of criminal proceedings and that the ruling in Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387, rather than the ruling in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 ... ...
-
Corn v. State
... ... That case is inapposite: at a commitment hearing the state carries the burden of showing cause to detain the defendant for the grand jury (State v. Houston, 234 Ga. 721, 722, 218 S.E.2d 13 (1975)), making a record of its case which the defense might profitably review in detail. A hearing on a special plea of insanity finds the parties in a different stance: since it is the defendant who must present the evidence, it is much less obvious why he would ... ...
-
Tucker v. State
... ... The offender who is not notified of the time and place of the commitment hearing, before the hearing, shall be released." ... The accused has the right to be represented by counsel at his committal hearing ... State v. Houston, 234 Ga. 721, 218 S.E.2d 13 (1975). A common practice in this State is that when the accused is brought before the committing officer as required by Code Ann. § 27-210, counsel is appointed at that time if the accused is indigent. A "reasonable time shall be given to the defendant or prosecutor ... ...