Sammy Lee Hamilton v. S. Lamont Smith, Warden, Georgia State Prison

Fifth Circuit

Sammy Lee Hamilton v. S. Lamont Smith, Warden, Georgia State Prison

450 F.2d 922, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7682

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 8, 1971

Docket30723

StatusPublished

This text of 450 F.2d 922 (Sammy Lee Hamilton v. S. Lamont Smith, Warden, Georgia State Prison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sammy Lee Hamilton v. S. Lamont Smith, Warden, Georgia State Prison, 450 F.2d 922, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7682 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Sammy Lee Hamilton, a Georgia state prisoner, appeals from a denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus without a hearing. Hamilton is serving a life sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery by force. He filed a habeas corpus petition in the Superior Court of Tattnall County, Georgia, alleging (1) that Negroes were systematically excluded from the grand jury which indicted him, (2) that he was never arraigned or given an opportunity to plead not guilty, and (3) that he was denied the assistance of counsel. The state court, after conducting a hearing, denied relief. In his petition to the district court, Hamilton repeated these same three allegations. Relief was denied on the ground that he had been given a full and fair hearing before the state court.

As to the claim that Hamilton was denied counsel, the district court erroneously imposed the burden of proof on Hamilton when it agreed with the state court’s conclusion that he “had not carried the burden of proving his contention.” This requires a remand for further proceedings in the light of our opinion in Goodwin v. Smith, 439 F.2d 1180 (5th Cir.1971). These cases are so similar that that opinion will serve adequately as a guide for further consideration of this case by the district court. Since the question of denial of counsel is inextricably entwined with Hamilton’s attack on his guilty plea, this, too, should be reconsidered by the district court on remand.

We agree that Hamilton is not entitled to relief on this petition on the ground that Negroes were excluded from the grand jury. This contention has not been adequately presented to the state courts. 1

Reversed and remanded.

1

. If Hamilton’s guilty plea was validly entered, that plea acted as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings against him, including any de-feet in the composition of the grand jury. File v. Smith, 413 F.2d 969 (5th Cir. 1969).

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

PER CURIAM:

Sammy Lee Hamilton, a Georgia state prisoner, appeals from a denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus without a hearing. Hamilton is serving a life sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery by force. He filed a habeas corpus petition in the Superior Court of Tattnall County, Georgia, alleging (1) that Negroes were systematically excluded from the grand jury which indicted him, (2) that he was never arraigned or given an opportunity to plead not guilty, and (3) that he was denied the assistance of counsel. The state court, after conducting a hearing, denied relief. In his petition to the district court, Hamilton repeated these same three allegations. Relief was denied on the ground that he had been given a full and fair hearing before the state court.

As to the claim that Hamilton was denied counsel, the district court erroneously imposed the burden of proof on Hamilton when it agreed with the state court’s conclusion that he “had not carried the burden of proving his contention.” This requires a remand for further proceedings in the light of our opinion in Goodwin v. Smith, 439 F.2d 1180 (5th Cir.1971). These cases are so similar that that opinion will serve adequately as a guide for further consideration of this case by the district court. Since the question of denial of counsel is inextricably entwined with Hamilton’s attack on his guilty plea, this, too, should be reconsidered by the district court on remand.

We agree that Hamilton is not entitled to relief on this petition on the ground that Negroes were excluded from the grand jury. This contention has not been adequately presented to the state courts. 1

Reversed and remanded.

1

. If Hamilton’s guilty plea was validly entered, that plea acted as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings against him, including any de-feet in the composition of the grand jury. File v. Smith, 413 F.2d 969 (5th Cir. 1969).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 F.2d 922, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sammy-lee-hamilton-v-s-lamont-smith-warden-georgia-state-prison-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack