Wright v. State, 67214
| Decision Date | 01 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 67214,67214 |
| Citation | 169 Ga.App. 181,312 S.E.2d 181 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Derek H. Jones, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Benjamin H. Oehlert III, Paul L. Howard, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
The defendant was convicted of six counts of armed robbery of several fast food restaurant outlets. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, as amended, he appeals.
Held:
1. Counsel for defendant, a public defender, at trial moved for a continuance contending he needed more time to interview witnesses. Defendant contends the denial of his motion violated his right to due process, effective assistance of counsel, confrontation of witnesses, meaningful access to the courts, and equal protection, that is, to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and to have the right to a full and fair hearing as provided by the various amendments of the United States Constitution and corresponding laws of Georgia. The record disclosed that the defendant had been represented by the same attorney for over six weeks. Counsel had located and interviewed the eyewitnesses and had interviewed a person who disputed the state's version of the means by which the line-up was held. He contends, however, that he had been unable to locate the police informer who had reported the defendant as the man responsible for the robberies. The grant or denial of a continuance is in the sole discretion of the trial court. Absent a showing that this discretion has been abused it will not be controlled. See Hill v. State, 161 Ga.App. 346(1), 287 S.E.2d 779; Williams v. State, 148 Ga.App. 55(1), 250 S.E.2d 848; Nix v. State, 157 Ga.App. 406, 407(1), 277 S.E.2d 768. The record here suggests, however, there was no lack of preparation or diligence on the part of defendant's counsel, and we find no merit in this complaint. See Foster v. State, 213 Ga. 601, 603(1), 100 S.E.2d 426; Bullard v. State, 157 Ga.App. 606, 607(2), 278 S.E.2d 26.
2. The second enumeration of error appears to be a failure to set forth a clear statement that the court erred in denying a motion to suppress the testimony of the witness identifying the defendant in court. The enumeration contends that the trial court erred when it failed "to grant the defendant's identification." There were a number of witnesses used to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the six robberies. A courtroom identification by a witness previously viewing the defendant on the date of the crime is proper even though it is one-on-one. Bush v. State, 149 Ga.App. 448, 449(3), 254 S.E.2d 453. This witness identified the defendant for the first time in the courtroom. Compare Foster v. State, 156 Ga.App. 672, 275 S.E.2d 745; Daniel v. State, 150 Ga.App. 798, 258 S.E.2d 604. Defendant also contends the line-up itself, where other witnesses identified the defendant, was impermissibly suggestive and there was substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification occurring. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198-199, 93 S.Ct. 375, 381-382, 34 L.Ed.2d 401. However, we find no reversible error here in the in-court identification of the defendant. There was no courtroom identification as a result of state action in sending the witness in to find the defendant. See Mangrum v. State, 155 Ga.App. 334, 270 S.E.2d 874; Herron v. State, 155 Ga.App. 791, 793(3), 272 S.E.2d 756; Ambros v. State, 159 Ga.App. 492(2), 283 S.E.2d 706. Further, there was no right to counsel at a pre-indictment line-up as the defendant contends. See Burgess v. State, 242 Ga. 889, 891(3), 252 S.E.2d 391. This enumeration of error is not meritorious.
3. During the trial the defendant sought to prove by certain evidence the defendant's financial standing during the time of the robbery was such that he had not benefitted financially in anyway. Such evidence was his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmer v. State, 75956
...amount and type of information that it would allow to be presented to the jury. Compare these facts to the facts in Wright v. State, 169 Ga.App. 181(3), 312 S.E.2d 181. Assuming without deciding that the trial judge abused his discretion in failing to admit certain evidence of appellant's u......
- Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 67204
-
Breazeale v. State
...Wall, supra. 15. See Belt, supra at 764, 505 S.E.2d 1. 16. See Copeland, supra. 17. (Citations omitted.) Wright v. State, 169 Ga. App. 181, 183(3), 312 S.E.2d 181 (1983). 18. Winfrey v. State, 286 Ga.App. 450, 453(5), 649 S.E.2d 561 (2007). 19. (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Mosely v.......
-
Campbell v. State, 73486
...judge, and absent a showing that such discretion was abused, it will not be controlled. OCGA § 17-8-33 (a); Wright v. State, 169 Ga.App. 181, 182(1), 312 S.E.2d 181 (1983). We find no abuse of discretion here. The continuance was granted to assure that appellant's rights under OCGA § 17-7-2......