Stynchcombe v. Hardy
| Decision Date | 07 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26646,26646 |
| Citation | 184 S.E.2d 356,228 Ga. 130 |
| Parties | LeRoy N. STYNCHCOMBE v. Tommy B. HARDY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The sole question to be decided in a habeas corpus proceeding is the legality of the confinement at the time of the hearing.
On February 10, 1971 Tommy B. Hardy was arrested after a search (with a warrant) of his person disclosed the possession of a white powder wrapped in foil and in a package of cigarettes. A later analysis by the State Crime Laboratory disclosed the substance to be cocaine.
A commitment hearing was held and the prisoner bound over to the grand jury. He was unable to make bond and was put in jail. A copy of the written report from the State Crime Laboratory was forwarded to the officer who made the investigation, but the original did not reach the office of the district attorney and consequently no indictment was prepared to lay before the grand jury. On May 10, 1971 the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed and upon the hearing the trial court discharged the prisoner and barred any further prosecution of the pending charge although it was stipulated that probable cause for the commitment was shown at the commitment hearing. The sheriff appealed.
The third grand jury since the prisoner's arrest was in session at the time of the hearing of the petition for habeas corpus and no contention is made that the discharge from custody under such circumstances was erroneous, and the only issue is whether the superior court could legally bar further prosecution of the pending charge.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carter Goode, Joel M. Feldman, Atlanta, for appellant.
Austin E. Catts, Atlanta, for appellee.
1. The sole question to be decided in the habeas corpus proceeding was whether the confinement of the prisoner was legal at the time of the hearing. See Johnson v. Plunkett, 215 Ga. 353(5), 110 S.E.2d 745; and citations; Ballard v. Smith, Warden, 225 Ga. 416(4), 169 S.E.2d 329; Evans v. Perkins, Warden, 225 Ga. 48(4), 165 S.E.2d 652. Habeas corpus proceedings cannot be used to test the legality of possible future imprisonment. See Crumley v. Head, 225 Ga. 246(1), 167 S.E.2d 651.
In Williamson v. State, 1 Ga.App. 657, 57 S.E. 1079, it was held: '1. Where a person is arrested on a warrant charging him with bastardy, and, upon an investigation by a justice of the peace, is required to give the bond provided for in the Penal Code, § 1250 (§ 74-303), and, upon failure to give such bond, is bound over to appear before a court of competent jurisdiction to answer to the charge of bastardy, there is no charge or case against the defendant until an accusation, indictment, or presentment is preferred.
2. Consequently a person so bound for his appearance can not, as a matter of right, demand a trial or a discharge; an order entered on the minutes allowing such demand is a nullity, and it is not error to refuse at the succeeding term to grant an order discharging him.'
In State v. Maurignos, T.U.P. Charlton 24 it was said that under the habeas corpus Act, 31 Carolus 2, Ch. 2 Sec. 7, which was adopted by our Constitution and laws enacted a person committed for felony could upon demand require indictment and trial at no later than the second term. In Shirah v. Boyd, Sheriff, 148 Ga. 263, 96 S.E. 337, a majority of the court refused to follow the superior court dicision supra, and held that no demand could be made for trial prior to indictment.
'Referring to the effect of a demand for trial in the case of Denny v. State, 6 Ga. 491, Nisbet, J., said, in the opinion, that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Houston
...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 pre......
-
State v. Nash
...481, 484-85 (Miss.1974) (habeas corpus may not be used to bar further prosecution for the charged offense), and Stynchcombe v. Hardy, 228 Ga. 130, 184 S.E.2d 356, 358 (1971) (trial judge in habeas corpus proceeding lacked authority to bar any future prosecution of defendant).2 One example i......
-
Watts v. Pitts
...failure to provide counsel may be harmless error.4 See McClure v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 45, 48, 214 S.E.2d 503 (1975); and Stynchcombe v. Hardy, 228 Ga. 130, 184 S.E.2d 356 (1971).5 See Casteel v. State, 235 Ga. 804, 221 S.E.2d 579 (1976); Walker v. City of Atlanta, 238 Ga. 723, 235 S.E.2d 28 (19......
-
Heard v. State
...v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541; Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 7 S.Ct. 225, 30 L.Ed. 421); Stynchcombe v. Hardy, 228 Ga. 130, 184 S.E.2d 356. 8. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the victim's and Sergeant Reese's in court ide......