Zant v. Hamilton, 40188
| Decision Date | 05 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 40188,40188 |
| Citation | 307 S.E.2d 667,251 Ga. 553 |
| Parties | ZANT v. HAMILTON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., James P. Googe, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, First Asst. Attys. Gen., William B. Hill, Jr., Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Mary Beth Westmoreland, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Walter D. Zant, Warden.
Robert G. Fierer, Atlanta, for Roland Paul Hamilton.
The appellee, Roland Paul Hamilton, was convicted of murder, and he was given the death penalty based on the jury's finding of two statutory aggravating circumstances. On direct appeal, his conviction and sentence were affirmed. Hamilton v. State, 244 Ga. 145, 259 S.E.2d 81 (1979). On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, the death penalty was vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980). Hamilton v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 961, 100 S.Ct. 2936, 64 L.Ed.2d 821 (1980). On remand, the judgment imposing the death penalty was reaffirmed. Hamilton v. State, 246 Ga. 264, 271 S.E.2d 173 (1980). This appeal by the state is from an order, entered in state habeas corpus proceedings, setting aside the appellee's murder conviction and death sentence on grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The murder victim was John Shinall. The key state's witness was the appellee's girlfriend, Billie Jean Rose. Defense counsel at trial was John F.M. Ranitz, Jr.
Billie Jean Rose testified that on the day of the murder she and Hamilton had been drinking with Shinall at various bars in Savannah, Georgia; that they returned to Shinall's apartment; that Rose left the room; that when she returned, she saw Hamilton stabbing Shinall; and that she then fled with Hamilton, who took various of Shinall's belongings and some of his money.
Hamilton gave conflicting pretrial statements to the police. In his first statement, he admitted hitting Shinall, but he stated that it was in response to a call for help by Billie Jean Rose; he further stated that he did not know that he had killed Shinall and that Billie Jean Rose had committed the robbery. In a second statement, he admitted hitting Shinall five or six times, stabbing him, and committing the robbery.
The superior court in this proceeding has concluded that Hamilton received ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt-innocence and sentencing stages of his trial. This conclusion is based on the following findings: that although counsel knew only four or five members of the traverse jury panel, he questioned only three jurors on voir-dire examination, and only as to a matter unrelated to capital punishment; that he made no application for investigative funds and conducted no independent investigation; that no witnesses were personally interviewed prior to their testimony; that the autopsy report and other expert medical evidence revealed that two types of wounds, stabbing and tearing, were inflicted upon the deceased; that this supported Hamilton's statement that Billie Jean Rose hit the victim on the head with a bottle; however, defense counsel failed to cross-examine Billie Jean Rose concerning this; that the deceased had a known propensity for violence, which was not investigated; that there was no investigation of grounds on which Billie Jean Rose's testimony and her credibility could have been impeached; that there was no investigation of a prior criminal conviction entered against Hamilton when he was 18 years of age, even though defense counsel knew that this would be offered against Hamilton if he was convicted; that no member of Hamilton's family was contacted prior to trial, even though they could have given evidence in mitigation; and that the state had an agreement not to prosecute Billie Jean Rose, which defense counsel did not require the state to disclose.
In this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibson v. Turpin, S97R1412.
...to unpublished habeas decision vacating death sentence); Stynchcombe v. Floyd, 252 Ga. 113, 311 S.E.2d 828 (1984); Zant v. Hamilton, 251 Ga. 553, 307 S.E.2d 667 (1983); Jarrell v. Zant, 248 Ga. 492, 284 S.E.2d 17 (1981); Zant v. Gaddis, 247 Ga. 717, 279 S.E.2d 219 (1981); Amadeo v. Zant, 48......
-
Amin v. State
...reversed in finding of deficiency in per forma at trial; Brooks v. State, 187 Ga.App. 92, 369 S.E.2d 349 (1988); Zant v. Hamilton, 251 Ga. 553, 307 S.E.2d 667 (1983), cert. denied 466 U.S. 989, 104 S.Ct. 2371, 80 L.Ed.2d 843 (1984); and Zant v. Dick, 249 Ga. 799, 294 S.E.2d 508 (1982), habe......
-
Dent v. State
...amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. Anthony v. State , 302 Ga. 546, 553 (IV), 807 S.E.2d 891 (2017), citing Zant v. Hamilton , 251 Ga. 553, 307 S.E.2d 667 (1983). But, Dent has failed to demonstrate what the alleged witnesses would have provided and whether those witnesses would ha......
-
Goodwin v. Cruz-Padillo
...or subpoena witnesses in support of sole defense of alibi was ineffective assistance of counsel); see also Zant v. Hamilton, 251 Ga. 553, 554, 307 S.E.2d 667 (1983) (affirming habeas court's finding that counsel was ineffective in part because he failed to investigate victim's known propens......