Whisman v. State, 23889
| Decision Date | 09 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 23889,23889 |
| Citation | 153 S.E.2d 548,223 Ga. 124 |
| Parties | Woodrow WHISMAN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The court did not err in remanding the petitioner to the custody of the respondent in that the petitioner was indicted and is now in the custody of the respondent by virtue of his final conviction and sentence, and not be virtue of a warrant executed for his arrest.
Garland & Garland, Reuben A. Garland, Edward T. M. Garland, Atlanta, for appellant.
Earl B. Self, Sol. Gen., Bobby Lee Cook, Summerville, for appellee.
Woodrow Whisman was convicted in Chattooga Superior Court for the murder of Billy Copeland on December 15, 1964, and the order denying his motion for a new trial was affirmed by this court on October 7, 1965, (Whisman v. State, 221 Ga. 460, 145 S.E.2d 499). Whisman's appeal to the United States Supreme Court was denied (384 U.S. 895, 86 S.Ct. 1977, 16 L.Ed.2d 1001) and upon being resentenced on October 28, 1966, he filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking his release from the custody of the Sheriff of Chattooga County.
Petitioner asserted that he was arrested under a warrant charging him with the offense of murder and that prior to his indictment for said offense he did not receive a commitment hearing to which he was entitled under Code Ann. §§ 27-210 and 27-401. Further, petitioner asserted he did not waive such a hearing, and thereby he was denied his rights of due process of law under stated provisions of the Federal and State Constitutions and to equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution rendering his subsequent conviction null and void.
On the return of the rule, the court after hearing evidence remanded the petitioner to the custody of the respondent sheriff. The appeal assigns error on this order.
The record discloses that: on January 9, 1965, the petitioner was arrested under a warrant, duly issued, charging him with the murder of one Billy Copeland on December 15, 1964, and placed in the custody of the respondent; on January 11, 1965, fifty-seven hours after the respondent took him in to custody, the petitioner was indicted for the offense of murder; and from the time of his arrest and throughout his trial, petitioner was represented by legal counsel, selected by him or his family.
The petitioner contends that the provisions of Code Ann. § 27-210, as amended by the Act of 1956 (Ga.L.1956, p. 796) which declares that 'Every officer arresting under a warrant shall exercise reasonable diligence in bringing the person arrested before the person authorized to examine, commit or receive bail and in any event to present the person arrested before a committing officer within 72 hours after arrest' were not complied with, and all that transpired thereafter violated his constitutional rights.
This contention is not sustainable Within 72 hours after his arrest, the petitioner was indicted and is now in the custody of the respondent by virtue of his final conviction and sentence, and not by virtue of a warrant executed for his arrest. In Johnson v. Plunkett, 215 Ga. 353(5), 110 S.E.2d 745, 747, this court in a habeas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. State
...and the court did not err in denying appellant's motion. Johnson v. State, 215 Ga. 839, 114 S.E.2d 35 (1959); Whisman v. State, 223 Ga. 124, 153 S.E.2d 548 (1967). Appellant further argues that he should have received a transfer hearing. A transfer hearing is not required where the offense ......
-
Kerr v. Dutton
...has been ignored, see cases cited in text, and distinguished away, Cannon v. Grimes, 1967, 223 Ga. 35, 153 S.E.2d 445; Whisman v. State, 1967, 223 Ga. 124, 153 S.E.2d 548. Viewing the cruel and inhumane manner in which the defendant in Manor had been treated in the jail, the Georgia court n......
-
Douglas v. State, 49637
...187 S.E.2d 142; Ballard v. Smith, 225 Ga. 416, 419(4), 169 S.E.2d 329; Furman v. State, 225 Ga. 253(5), 167 S.E.2d 628; Whisman v. State, 223 Ga. 124, 153 S.E.2d 548; Johnson v. State, 126 Ga.App. 757, 761, 191 S.E.2d 614; Heard v. State, 126 Ga.App. 62, 64(1), 189 S.E.2d 895; Dukes v. Stat......
-
Whisman v. State, 24913
...set aside his conviction or his sentence of death by electrocution. See Whisman v. State, 221 Ga. 460, 145 S.E.2d 499 and Whisman v. State, 223 Ga. 124, 153 S.E.2d 548. The appellant appeals from an order of the trial court resentencing him to be electrocuted which provided in part: 'It app......