Williams v. State, 39868
| Decision Date | 01 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 39868,39868 |
| Parties | Robert Eugene WILLIAMS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert Eugene Williams, pro se.
Glynn Thomas, Jr., Dist. Atty., Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Brunswick, for the State.
Robert Eugene Williams was indicted for murder and subsequently was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Williams v. State, 163 Ga.App. 420, 294 S.E.2d 622 (1982). Williams subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied on October 20, 1982; his application to appeal was denied by this court on February 22, 1983.
While that application to appeal was pending, Williams filed a second pleading, captioned as a motion for an out of time appeal, contending that he was being illegally detained due to an illegal conviction based upon a tainted indictment; violation of his constitutional rights by failure to afford him a preliminary hearing; failure of the trial judge to give instructions to the jury as to involuntary manslaughter, self-defense, and accidental death; ineffective assistance of counsel; and the allowance of his statement (which he alleged was altered) into evidence. The trial court denied the motion, finding "no legal grounds for allowing such an out of time appeal." Williams appeals.
An out of time appeal occasionally is appropriate where, due to ineffective assistance of counsel, no appeal has been taken. See Furgerson v. State, 234 Ga. 594, 216 S.E.2d 845 (1975). That is not the case here. Therefore, treating the motion as a motion for out of time appeal, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Treating the motion as a petition for habeas corpus, the appeal is dismissed for want of an application, OCGA § 9-14-52 (Code, § 50-127), and as being successive, OCGA § 9-14-51 (Code, § 50-127). Treating the motion as an extraordinary motion for new trial, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed due to Williams' failure to satisfy the requisites for the grant of an extraordinary motion for new trial. See Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488, 491, 271 S.E.2d 792 (1980); Bell v. State, 227 Ga. 800, 805, 183 S.E.2d 357 (1971).
It is so ordered.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuller v. State, 73986
...days, it must be considered as an extraordinary motion for new trial. Dyal v. State, 121 Ga.App. 50(1), 172 S.E.2d 326; Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 83, 84, 303 S.E.2d 111. Our Supreme Court has held that "an extraordinary motion for new trial which fails to show any merit may be denied witho......
-
Clayton v. State, A97A1876
...ineffective assistance of counsel, no appeal has been taken. See Furgerson v. State, 234 Ga. 594, 216 S.E.2d 845 (1975)." Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 83, 303 S.E.2d 111. In the case sub judice, the record is inadequate to determine whether trial counsel fulfilled the important responsibility......
-
Henderson v. State, s. S94A1852
...the ineffective assistance of counsel, no appeal has been taken." Hunter v. State, 260 Ga. 762 (399 SE2d 921) (1991); Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 83 (303 SE2d 111) (1983). The record in this case does not show, however, that appellant's trial counsel abandoned his Lane v. State, 263 Ga. 517(......
-
Neisler v. State, A01A1881.
...of counsel, no appeal has been taken.'" Lane, supra, citing Hunter v. State, 260 Ga. 762, 399 S.E.2d 921 (1991); Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 83, 303 S.E.2d 111 (1983). In his motion for an out-of-time appeal and in the present appeal of the denial of that motion, Neisler claims that his tria......