Walker v. State, 56044

• Decision Date: 03 July 1978
• Docket Number: No. 56044,56044
• Citation: 146 Ga.App. 555,246 S.E.2d 737
• Parties: WALKER v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 737

246 S.E.2d 737

146 Ga.App. 555

WALKER v. The STATE.

No. 56044.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Submitted June 8, 1978.

Decided July 3, 1978.

Adams, Barfield & Dunaway, J. Edward Trice, Jr., Thomaston, for appellant.

Johnnie L. Caldwell, Jr., Dist. Atty., J. David Fowler, Paschal A. English, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.

McMURRAY, Judge.

This case involves an alleged crime spree occurring on April 10, 1977. The defendant Willie James Walker was indicted on three counts for the offenses of (1) burglary and (2, 3) motor vehicle theft (one 1973 Chevrolet panel truck and one 1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo). The defendant was convicted on all three counts. As to Count 1 he was sentenced to serve a term of 20 years; as to Count 2, 7 years consecutive to Count 1; and as to Count 3, 7 years consecutive to Count 2; providing further that Counts 2 and 3 were to be served on probation following service of the sentence as to Count 1 in the penitentiary. A motion for new trial, as later amended, was filed and, after a hearing, denied. Defendant appeals. Held:

1. Defendant's first enumeration of error contends the trial court erred in permitting two witnesses to testify "concerning certain confessions allegedly made to them by the Defendant since at the time such statements were supposedly made, the Defendant could not have knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent, his right to have an attorney and have an attorney present with him while being questioned, and his right to have an attorney appointed for him if he could not afford one." Two separate Jackson v. Denno (Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908) hearings were held during the trial to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of statements made by the defendant to a deputy sheriff and a justice of the peace. The statements were allegedly made on two separate occasions. The evidence heard on these separate hearings was sufficient to authorize the trial court to determine that the defendant was advised of his rights, that he was not placed under any duress, that he seemed to understand his rights, that he was not under influence of drugs or alcohol and that he seemed completely aware of what was going on around him. A prima facie showing of voluntariness was made, and the trial court did not err in permitting these witnesses to thereafter testify as to the alleged admissions or incriminating statements for the jury's consideration. See Moore v. State, 221 Ga. 636(3), 146 S.E.2d 895; Johnson v. State, 233 Ga. 58, 209 S.E.2d 629.

2. In considering the above evidence it was a question for the trial court to determine as to whether or not the defendant was under the influence of intoxicants and/or recovering from the shock of being...