Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Billups v. State

Billups v. State

214 S.E.2d 884, 234 Ga. 147, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1070
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided April 8, 1975·No. 29746·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinions

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

Wyman Billups sought a writ of mandamus on May 14,1974, to require the clerk of the Fulton Superior Court to furnish him a transcript of the trial in which he was convicted of armed robbery and aggravated assault and sentenced to serve twenty and ten years respectively. The appellant had retained counsel at his September 24,1973, trial and no appeal was taken therefrom. The writ of [148] mandamus was denied on June 19, 1974, and the appellant was furnished a copy of the order, the indictment, the plea and the sentence. On August 19, 1974, the appellant again sought a writ of mandamus against the State of Georgia to obtain a certified copy of the trial transcript, criminal warrant and arrest, commitment motions, and the verbatim copy of the "district attorney’s charge to the Grand Jury.” The writ was denied on August 28, 1974 because there was no motion or appeal pending in the case, no justification or necessity for transmittal of the requested documents had been shown, and because a copy of the indictment and sentence had previously been furnished the applicant. The appeal is from this judgment. Held:

Submitted March 10, 1975 Decided April 8, 1975. Wyman Billups, pro se. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, H. Allen Moye, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

There is no motion for new trial or appeal pending in this case.

In Wilson v. Downie, 228 Ga. 656, 658 (187 SE2d 293) it was said: "There must be some justification or showing of necessity beyond a mere naked demand for a transcript. While there is a basic right to a free transcript to perfect a timely direct appeal, there is no absolute right to a free transcript just so the prisoner may have it, and some justification for use in a habeas corpus or related proceeding must be shown in order to be entitled to such records in a collateral attack on the sentence. See Wade v. Wilson, 396 U. S. 282 (90 SC 501, 24 LE2d 470); Bentley v. United States, 431 F2d 250; Hines v. Baker, 422 F2d 1002; Smith v. United States, 421 F2d 1300; United States v. Mitchell, 312 FSupp. 515.” Accord, Mullen v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 575 (3) (193 SE2d 601); Griffin v. Smith, 228 Ga. 177(3) (184 SE2d 459); Keys v. State, 127 Ga. App. 404 (193 SE2d 891). It follows that the contentions of the appellant are not meritorious.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Gunter, Ingram and Hill, JJ., who dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Billups v. State, 214 S.E.2d 884, 234 Ga. 147, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1070 (Ga. 1975).

214 S.E.2d 884 (Billups v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miller v. State
689 S.E.2d 46 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Mitchell v. State
633 S.E.2d 539 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2006)
Montgomery v. Tremblay
292 S.E.2d 64 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1982)
Henry v. State
290 S.E.2d 210 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
McDowell v. Balkcom
272 S.E.2d 280 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1980)
Huddleston v. Clerk of Superior Court, Carroll County
239 S.E.2d 376 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Holmes v. Kenyon
234 S.E.2d 502 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Bynum v. State
231 S.E.2d 62 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1976)
Wyche v. State
231 S.E.2d 122 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Evans v. Watson
227 S.E.2d 253 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1976)
Yates v. Brown
219 S.E.2d 729 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975)
Billups v. State
214 S.E.2d 884 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975)