Ramirez v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ramirez v. State

160 S.E.2d 234, 117 Ga. App. 226, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1040

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 12, 1968

Docket43394

StatusPublished

This text of 160 S.E.2d 234 (Ramirez v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ramirez v. State, 160 S.E.2d 234, 117 Ga. App. 226, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1040 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Quilutan, Judge.

On April 18, 1966, Felix S'. Ramirez, a male white citizen, was indicted and convicted of burglary. In August 1967 he filed an “Extraordinary Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence.” The motion alleged that the grand jury which indicted him was illegally constituted because the jury was selected from the tax digest of Fulton County which was segregated by race. The appellant was represented by counsel at the time of his conviction and no challenge was made to the composition of the grand jury at the time of the trial. The appellant’s motion was overruled and the case is here for review. Held:

This case is controlled by Strauss v. Grimes, 223 Ga. 834 (158 SE2d 404) in which it was held that, under facts materially the same as in the case sub judice, retroactive application of Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 545 (87 SC 643, 17 LE2d 599) was not required.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

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

Quilutan, Judge.

On April 18, 1966, Felix S'. Ramirez, a male white citizen, was indicted and convicted of burglary. In August 1967 he filed an “Extraordinary Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence.” The motion alleged that the grand jury which indicted him was illegally constituted because the jury was selected from the tax digest of Fulton County which was segregated by race. The appellant was represented by counsel at the time of his conviction and no challenge was made to the composition of the grand jury at the time of the trial. The appellant’s motion was overruled and the case is here for review. Held:

This case is controlled by Strauss v. Grimes, 223 Ga. 834 (158 SE2d 404) in which it was held that, under facts materially the same as in the case sub judice, retroactive application of Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 545 (87 SC 643, 17 LE2d 599) was not required.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 S.E.2d 234, 117 Ga. App. 226, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-state-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack