Williams v. Gooding

• Decision Date: 09 July 1970
• Docket Number: No. 25805,25805
• Citation: 226 Ga. 549,176 S.E.2d 64
• Parties: Walter A. WILLIAMS v. Millard F. GOODING.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 64

176 S.E.2d 64

226 Ga. 549

Walter A. WILLIAMS v. Millard F. GOODING.

No. 25805.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 9, 1970.

John H. Ruffin, Jr., Augusta, Thomas M. Jackson, Macon, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

ALMAND, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from an order denying petitioner, Walter A. Williams, his petition for the writ of habeas corpus and remanding him to the custody of Millard F. Gooding, Warden of Georgia State Prison.

The amended petition for the Writ alleged the following: Williams, under an indictment in Warren County Superior Court on the charge of burglary was, on his trial in October, 1968, found guilty and sentenced to a term of 20 years. That after his arrest, he engaged Louise Hornsby, an attorney, to represent him. That when the time came for his arraignment, he hired Claude Blandus to obtain a continuance. His case was set for trial on October 9. On that day, Attorney Hornsby, by telegram to the trial judge, requested a continuance because of her illness. He alleged: 'Petitioner shows that he was forced to trial without the benefit of counsel of his choice, that he had retained counsel and that he was not at that time indigent. Further, that petitioner had to represent himself before a jury and that he knew nothing of legal proceedings. The court being thus informed of the illness of defendant's counsel, in order to comply with Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 5, of the Constitution of Georgia, entitling defendant to the benefit of counsel, and to comply with the due process and equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, should have then and there continued said case if its motion and counsel's motion, and the court's failure to do so affected the entire proceedings as to rob said proceedings of any semblance of a judicial (sic) tribunal, and denied defendant his right to benefit of counsel as provided by law.'

He alleged that his conviction was illegal and void and asked the court to grant a supersedeas bond. After a hearing, the Judge of Richmond County Superior Court denied his motion for a supersedeas bond and the writ of habeas corpus. The appeal is from this order.

Error is enumerated on the part of the order denying appellant's petition for the writ of habeas corpus.

This order is affirmed for the following reasons: The record of what occurred in October, 1968 at the time Williams was placed upon trial, we before the court. The court announced that he had received a telegram from Attorney Hornsby stating that she would be unable to be present in court 'because of emergency illness'; that Attorney Blandus appeared in court as representing Williams at the time of arraignment; that at the call of the case for trial, Blandus stated he was engaged first by the defendant, and after his discharge, was re-employed by the defendant's mother. The judge stated to the defendant that he would give the defendant time to employ counsel or would appoint a competent counsel for him. The following took place: 'The Court: Do I understand you very clearly now * * * that you don't want the court to appoint you an attorney? Walter Anthony Williams: That's right. The Court: All right, let me ask you this * * * have you by your attorney, Mr. Blandus, and this Attorney Louise T. Hornsby, have you been advised generally of the nature of the charges which are made against you here? Have you been advised of all your rights? In the matter? Walter Anthony Williams: They told me * * * Mr. Blandus told me I wouldn't be tried unless I had an attorney and I had talked with Louise about representing me. Mr. Blandus * * * I don't want him to represent me. The Court: You say you do not want him to represent you? Walter Anthony Williams: No sir, I do not. The Court: But I do know generally they have advised you of all of your rights in the matter, haven't they? About a trial and that sort of thing? Of the offenses charged against you? They have advised you generally about those have they not? Walter Anthony Williams: No sir, they haven't told me everything * * * The Court: Have they advised you about yout Constitution rights? Mr. Blandus * * * you being in open court here, I call upon you sir, if you please, and I do not mean to invade the privacy of you as counsel during the time you did represent the defendant. * * * I ask you sir if you have advised the Defendant of the nature of the offenses charged against him? As to all of rights, both state and federal, constitutionally and otherwise in these matters, stating for the record sir? Mr. Blandus: Yes sir I have. I talked to him about. * * * The Court: Did you do that prior * * * sir? Mr. Blandus: I told him about his constitutional rights. The Court: And the general nature or denature (sic) intruded by the offenses charged against him? Mr. Blandus: Yes sir. We discussed the charges because I wrote them down * * * the charges that he was charged with. The Court: Yes sir. Was that one of the duties for which you were employed as counsel to...