Frederick v. Davis

Supreme Court of Georgia

Frederick v. Davis

200 S.E.2d 266, 231 Ga. 109, 1973 Ga. LEXIS 602

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 6, 1973

Docket28107

StatusPublished

This text of 200 S.E.2d 266 (Frederick v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frederick v. Davis, 200 S.E.2d 266, 231 Ga. 109, 1973 Ga. LEXIS 602 (Ga. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Undercofler, Justice.

Appellant was cited for parole violation. At a hearing where he was represented by counsel, without solicitation and voluntarily, he admitted the commission of a crime other than that for which he was cited. The court revoked his probation. Appellant then instituted the habeas corpus action complaining that it was error to revoke his probation for a criminal act for which he had not been given notice prior to the hearing. This appeal is from an order remanding him to the custody of the warden. Held:

The appellant cannot complain of lack of notice where he voluntarily and without solicitation admits in judicio that he has violated the terms of his probation. Compare George v. State, 99 Ga. App. 892 (109 SE2d 883); Gay v. State, 101 Ga. App. 225 (2) (113 SE2d 223); Dingier v. State, 101 Ga. App. 312 (1) (113 SE2d 496); Rainwater v. State, 127 Ga. App. 406 (193 SE2d 889).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Undercofler, Justice.

Appellant was cited for parole violation. At a hearing where he was represented by counsel, without solicitation and voluntarily, he admitted the commission of a crime other than that for which he was cited. The court revoked his probation. Appellant then instituted the habeas corpus action complaining that it was error to revoke his probation for a criminal act for which he had not been given notice prior to the hearing. This appeal is from an order remanding him to the custody of the warden. Held:

The appellant cannot complain of lack of notice where he voluntarily and without solicitation admits in judicio that he has violated the terms of his probation. Compare George v. State, 99 Ga. App. 892 (109 SE2d 883); Gay v. State, 101 Ga. App. 225 (2) (113 SE2d 223); Dingier v. State, 101 Ga. App. 312 (1) (113 SE2d 496); Rainwater v. State, 127 Ga. App. 406 (193 SE2d 889).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 S.E.2d 266, 231 Ga. 109, 1973 Ga. LEXIS 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederick-v-davis-ga-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack