Williams v. Lawrence

Supreme Court of Georgia

Williams v. Lawrence

18 S.E.2d 463, 193 Ga. 381, 1942 Ga. LEXIS 370

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 13, 1942

Docket13980.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 18 S.E.2d 463 (Williams v. Lawrence) 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

Williams v. Lawrence, 18 S.E.2d 463, 193 Ga. 381, 1942 Ga. LEXIS 370 (Ga. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Reid, Chief Justice.

1. A defendant who, as in the present case, instituted a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that he had been deprived of the benefit of counsel as guaranteed him under the constitution (Code, § 2-105), in that he did not receive proper representation by counsel appointed for him by the court, which was dismissed on general demurrer, in accordance with the decision of this court, on writ of error, that the facts alleged did not disclose a violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to be represented by counsel (Aldredge v. Williams, 188 6a. 607, 4 S. E. 2d, 409), is precluded, by virtue of such judgment, from maintaining another petition for habeas corpus, based on the same ground. Perry v. McLendon, 62 Ga. 598; Lay v. Smith, 172 Ga. 467, 474 (157 S. E. 639).

2. In addition to the former petition for ■ habeas corpus, the defendant thereafter filed an extraordinapy motion for new trial, wherein he presented the saíne contention that he had been deprived of the benefit of counsel; and the judgment of the judge denying this motion was, after a careful review of thg facts, affirmed by this court. Williams v. State, 192 Ga. 247 (15 S. E. 2d, 219). Thus there have been in fact two adjudications against the defendant on the question he now seeks to present. There should be no further investigation. The judge did not err in dismissing the petition. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Reid, Chief Justice.

1. A defendant who, as in the present case, instituted a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that he had been deprived of the benefit of counsel as guaranteed him under the constitution (Code, § 2-105), in that he did not receive proper representation by counsel appointed for him by the court, which was dismissed on general demurrer, in accordance with the decision of this court, on writ of error, that the facts alleged did not disclose a violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to be represented by counsel (Aldredge v. Williams, 188 6a. 607, 4 S. E. 2d, 409), is precluded, by virtue of such judgment, from maintaining another petition for habeas corpus, based on the same ground. Perry v. McLendon, 62 Ga. 598; Lay v. Smith, 172 Ga. 467, 474 (157 S. E. 639).

2. In addition to the former petition for ■ habeas corpus, the defendant thereafter filed an extraordinapy motion for new trial, wherein he presented the saíne contention that he had been deprived of the benefit of counsel; and the judgment of the judge denying this motion was, after a careful review of thg facts, affirmed by this court. Williams v. State, 192 Ga. 247 (15 S. E. 2d, 219). Thus there have been in fact two adjudications against the defendant on the question he now seeks to present. There should be no further investigation. The judge did not err in dismissing the petition. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 S.E.2d 463, 193 Ga. 381, 1942 Ga. LEXIS 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-lawrence-ga-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack