Ritzheimer v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ritzheimer v. State

203 S.E.2d 566, 130 Ga. App. 319, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1310

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 27, 1973

Docket48597

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 S.E.2d 566 (Ritzheimer 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

Ritzheimer v. State, 203 S.E.2d 566, 130 Ga. App. 319, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1310 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinions

Hall, Presiding Judge.

Appellant Ritzheimer was jointly indicted and tried with Faye Allyson Adams and Sanford Hoyt Butler for a 1972 shopping center burglary. Our decision upon Adams’ appeal has previously been reported at 129 Ga. App. 839 (201 SE2d 649), and our decision today on the Butler appeal is reported on page 469, post. The facts will not be recited here, appearing fully in the other two decisions. Ritzheimer brings this appeal pro se without enumeration of errors and without a brief or argument. He was convicted on Counts 1 and 2 of the joint [320]*320indictment — for possession of burglary tools and burglary.

Submitted September 17, 1973 Decided November 27, 1973. W. J. Ritzheimer, pro se.

Our review of the entire record of the proceedings reveals no denial of Ritzheimer’s constitutional rights nor other reversible error. His pulling a gun on the officers at the shopping center gave grounds for his arrest and personal search. In the Butler appeal we have upheld the validity of the search warrants for the car and the apartment involved here, which yielded evidence introduced at trial. Ritzheimer made no demand for trial, and the rationale upon which we reversed the conviction of Adams is not applicable to his circumstances. At trial he was represented by court-appointed counsel. His self-incriminating statement that "I flew down here to help do this burglary from Pennsylvania” was introduced against him, but the record contains unimpeached testimony from the interrogating officer that all proper warnings were given him prior to his decision to make the statement. His unsworn statement at trial did not deny his eventual participation in the burglary scheme, though he denied originally having planned it and claimed to some extent to be a "victim of circumstances.” The evidence on both counts was sufficient to convict. The verdicts upon Counts 1 and 2 are consistent with each other and with the evidence.

No error appearing, we affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Clark, J., concurs. Evans, J., concurs specially.

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

Hall, Presiding Judge.

Appellant Ritzheimer was jointly indicted and tried with Faye Allyson Adams and Sanford Hoyt Butler for a 1972 shopping center burglary. Our decision upon Adams’ appeal has previously been reported at 129 Ga. App. 839 (201 SE2d 649), and our decision today on the Butler appeal is reported on page 469, post. The facts will not be recited here, appearing fully in the other two decisions. Ritzheimer brings this appeal pro se without enumeration of errors and without a brief or argument. He was convicted on Counts 1 and 2 of the joint [320]*320indictment — for possession of burglary tools and burglary.

Submitted September 17, 1973 Decided November 27, 1973. W. J. Ritzheimer, pro se.

Our review of the entire record of the proceedings reveals no denial of Ritzheimer’s constitutional rights nor other reversible error. His pulling a gun on the officers at the shopping center gave grounds for his arrest and personal search. In the Butler appeal we have upheld the validity of the search warrants for the car and the apartment involved here, which yielded evidence introduced at trial. Ritzheimer made no demand for trial, and the rationale upon which we reversed the conviction of Adams is not applicable to his circumstances. At trial he was represented by court-appointed counsel. His self-incriminating statement that "I flew down here to help do this burglary from Pennsylvania” was introduced against him, but the record contains unimpeached testimony from the interrogating officer that all proper warnings were given him prior to his decision to make the statement. His unsworn statement at trial did not deny his eventual participation in the burglary scheme, though he denied originally having planned it and claimed to some extent to be a "victim of circumstances.” The evidence on both counts was sufficient to convict. The verdicts upon Counts 1 and 2 are consistent with each other and with the evidence.

No error appearing, we affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Clark, J., concurs. Evans, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 S.E.2d 566, 130 Ga. App. 319, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ritzheimer-v-state-gactapp-1973.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack