Thrash v. Caldwell

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MOBLEY
• Citation: Thrash v. Caldwell, 193 S.E.2d 605, 229 Ga. 585 (Ga. 1972)
• Decision Date: 05 October 1972
• Docket Number: No. 27387,27387
• Parties: Joseph THRASH v. E. B. CALDWELL.

Page 605

193 S.E.2d 605

229 Ga. 585

Joseph THRASH v. E. B. CALDWELL.

No. 27387.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 5, 1972.

Joseph Thrash, pro se.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, David L. G. King, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

MOBLEY, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from the judgment of the trial court in a habeas corpus proceeding dismissing the appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

1. The first enumerated error, complaining that he was denied a preliminary hearing or commitment hearing, is not a valid ground of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. This in no way affects the legality of his present detention. Ballard v. Smith, 225 Ga. 416(4), 169 S.E.2d 329; Griffin v. Smith, 228 Ga. 177(6), 184 S.E.2d 459. Furthermore, since the purpose of the commitment hearing is to determine whether there is probable cause to hold the accused for trial (Code § 27-407), the subsequent indictment, trial, and conviction of the accused render the omission harmless.

2. Enumerated errors 2, 3, and 4, alleging failure of the judge to charge on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, failure of the indictment to state the essential element of intent, and failure to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, are not meritorious for the reason that the writ of habeas corpus is never a substitute for a review to correct errors of law, nor can it be used as a second appeal for such purpose. It is an appropriate remedy only when the judgment is absolutely void. Brooks v. Ault, 228 Ga. 863, 188 S.E.2d 799, and citations.

3. The fifth enumeration of error alleges that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The trial judge held that the specific charges made against counsel, that he failed to request...