State v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

State v. Smith

452 S.E.2d 90, 264 Ga. 634, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 3737, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 896

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 21, 1994

DocketS94G0541

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 452 S.E.2d 90 (State 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

State v. Smith, 452 S.E.2d 90, 264 Ga. 634, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 3737, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 896 (Ga. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Hunt, Chief Justice.

We granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed Smith’s misdemeanor conviction because the trial court did not adequately warn him of the dangers of self-representa *635 tion. Smith was found guilty of simple battery, but not guilty of criminal trespass, and he was sentenced to 12 months probation, a fine, and 32 hours of community service.

Decided November 21, 1994. Ralph T. Bowden, Jr., Solicitor, Cliff Howard, Jaqueline R. Sea-bolt, Assistant Solicitors, for appellant. Rita T. Williams, for appellee.

Before trial, he invoked his right to appointed counsel, but was rejected, not because of the nature of the charges against him, but because he did not qualify for indigent representation. He then informed the trial court that while he wanted to hire a lawyer, he could not afford to do so even though his financial status precluded the services of the public defender. And, as pointed out by the dissent in the Court of Appeals, he indicated that he clearly understood and wished to avoid the danger of self-representation, Burnett v. State, 182 Ga. App. 539, 541 (1) (356 SE2d 231) (1987). Accordingly, there was no reason for the trial court to advise him that he had a right to hire counsel, to assure that he had waived that right, and to warn him of the dangers of proceeding without retained counsel.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hunt, Chief Justice.

We granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed Smith’s misdemeanor conviction because the trial court did not adequately warn him of the dangers of self-representa *635 tion. Smith was found guilty of simple battery, but not guilty of criminal trespass, and he was sentenced to 12 months probation, a fine, and 32 hours of community service.

Decided November 21, 1994. Ralph T. Bowden, Jr., Solicitor, Cliff Howard, Jaqueline R. Sea-bolt, Assistant Solicitors, for appellant. Rita T. Williams, for appellee.

Before trial, he invoked his right to appointed counsel, but was rejected, not because of the nature of the charges against him, but because he did not qualify for indigent representation. He then informed the trial court that while he wanted to hire a lawyer, he could not afford to do so even though his financial status precluded the services of the public defender. And, as pointed out by the dissent in the Court of Appeals, he indicated that he clearly understood and wished to avoid the danger of self-representation, Burnett v. State, 182 Ga. App. 539, 541 (1) (356 SE2d 231) (1987). Accordingly, there was no reason for the trial court to advise him that he had a right to hire counsel, to assure that he had waived that right, and to warn him of the dangers of proceeding without retained counsel.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

452 S.E.2d 90, 264 Ga. 634, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 3737, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-ga-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack