Gilbert v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Gilbert v. Smith

166 S.E.2d 889, 225 Ga. 210, 1969 Ga. LEXIS 435

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 20, 1969

Docket25098

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 S.E.2d 889 (Gilbert v. Smith) 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

Gilbert v. Smith, 166 S.E.2d 889, 225 Ga. 210, 1969 Ga. LEXIS 435 (Ga. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding in which the applicant alleges (1) an illegal search and seizure wherein the so-called burglary tools were found in' his possession, (2) he was convicted on contradictory, irrelevant and prejudicial testimony, and (3) he was not advised of the right of counsel. There is no transcript of evidence in the record, and while the applicant alleges that a statement of facts would be stipulated, none is in the record. Accordingly, the findings of fact by the trial judge that (1) the testimony of the arresting officers showed they had a search warrant refutes the evidence of the applicant that there was none; (2) the question of belief or disbelief of the witnesses is for jury consideration upon a proper charge by the court on conflicts in testimony; and (3) the applicant admits he had counsel but now claims he was ineffective, which is also refuted by the fact that counsel was a well-known criminal attorney, are consistent with the findings of law remanding the custody of the prisoner to the warden.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Smith, Cook & Portman, Barnard M. Portman, W. Lance Smith, for appellant. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Marion 0. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General, B. Daniel Dubberly, Jr., William B. Childers, Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding in which the applicant alleges (1) an illegal search and seizure wherein the so-called burglary tools were found in' his possession, (2) he was convicted on contradictory, irrelevant and prejudicial testimony, and (3) he was not advised of the right of counsel. There is no transcript of evidence in the record, and while the applicant alleges that a statement of facts would be stipulated, none is in the record. Accordingly, the findings of fact by the trial judge that (1) the testimony of the arresting officers showed they had a search warrant refutes the evidence of the applicant that there was none; (2) the question of belief or disbelief of the witnesses is for jury consideration upon a proper charge by the court on conflicts in testimony; and (3) the applicant admits he had counsel but now claims he was ineffective, which is also refuted by the fact that counsel was a well-known criminal attorney, are consistent with the findings of law remanding the custody of the prisoner to the warden.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Smith, Cook & Portman, Barnard M. Portman, W. Lance Smith, for appellant. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Marion 0. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General, B. Daniel Dubberly, Jr., William B. Childers, Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E.2d 889, 225 Ga. 210, 1969 Ga. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilbert-v-smith-ga-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack