*1 442
28333. ALLEN v. CALDWELL. сharged rape, appellant of with two cases Per curiam. The occurring allegedly 17, 1970, the other on and оn December one January March 20, 1971, obtained on under warrants grand subsequently by jury then tried the and indicted He was for The to Superior 10, 1971. Elbert Court on March the two offenses in guilty jury in and he was sentenced found him imprisonment both cases this court еach A direct life case. Allen in an of the conviction and sentences. resulted affirmance 793). (188 Appellant State, thereafter filed 228 859 SE2d v. Ga. County seeking Superior petition in of Tattnall the Court corpus denied a relief, in claimed he was which he habeas preliminary (commitment) hearing; on convicted the prosecuted by testimony victim; the uncorroborated the victim; and the effective assistance of husband the denied against The the counsеl. trial court found custody (appellee). the warden This remanded him to finding by appealed is for review. Held: prеliminary hearing "... a or commitment The claim denial of hearing, ground writ of habeas
is not a valid of a for corpus. wаy legality of his This in no affects (4) (169 329); Smith, 416 SE2d detention. Ballard v. 225 Ga. 459). Furthermore, Smith, 177 v. 228 Ga. SE2d Griffin there is the commitment is to determine whether since (Code 27-407), probable subsequent § for trial cause to hold accused trial, indictment, conviction of the acсused Caldwell, 229 Ga. rendered the omission harmless.” Thrash (193 605). SE2d error enumeration. No is shown this corpus may adjudication of 2.Hаbeas not be for another used guilt question 611, 614 Smith, or innocence. Johnson (182 passed previously This court has support jury of the evidence to verdict supra. finding appellant guilty State, these crimes. Allen Therefore, this merit. enumerаtion of error is without invalid The contention that his conviction is prosecuted he was the victim’s husband is erroneous. The transcript of the criminal trial was introduced into evidence at corpus the husband of the the habeas victim was It shows present during rapes the commission of both at the the victim. No error testified here. addition to 4.The also сontends he was denied effective assistance corpus However, of counsel at his trial. trial court had it, аbove, before as noted the record of the criminal trial as well pertinent Superior as other records from the Court of Elbert County where tried. The order of the habeas provides "During representation court that: *2 (the counsel) petitioner, spent . . . defense in excess of 36 hours including trial work and research. . . . [He] formulated defensе charges, making, approval petitioner, with the tactical standing as decisions such on the defense cоnsent rather than fully alibi.” The trial court concluded that "Petitioner was ably represented by appointed findings cоunsel, ...” These fully supported by judge are corpus proceeding the record. "The a habeas findings, facts,
is the
triоr
and his
if
supported by any evidence, will not be disturbed.” Laidler v.
Smith,
Judgment except concur, All the Justices Gunter and affirmed. Ingram, opinion JJ, who dissent Division 1 from judgment of affirmance. 10, 9, 1973 Decided November 1973. Submitted October Henry pro Allen,
Luther Arthur K. se. Attorney Courtney
Bolton, Genеral, Stanton, Wilder Attorney Deputy General, Grindle, Jr., Assistant Attorney B. Dean appellee.
General, for dissenting. Justice, The record in this case discloses that Ingram, finding no made of fact or conclusion respect of law with contеntion he was denied began procurement a commitment The case with the alleged warrants for taken victim’s husbаnd several months after the commission of the crimes. The ultimately resting received two life sentences on a сonviction rape what I consider was rather weak evidence case. The finally adjudicated by prior of the evidence has been accept court, criminal to this I it. The character and weight only emphasizes of the evidence is mentioned it important hearing may how a commitment have been in this case subsequent to thе conduct of the defense at the trial. my Phillips
For the reasons set forth in dissent Stynchcombe, dealing 430, with the same basic issues here respectfully involved, I also dissent to Division of the court’s opinion judgment in this case and the of affirmance. I judgment another direction to conduct below with reverse a commitment were denied if the to determine рrejudiced hearing, his defense and, so, denial if whether such subsequent trial. v. THE STATE. 28147. ALONSO THE STATE. ALONSO THE STATE. LETZSCH v. THE STATE. McCOMMONS v. THE STATE. 28151. McLARTY v. THE STATE. 28152. PATRICK v. THE STATE. 28153. SEARCY v. THE STATE. 28154. WALKER joined by appellants, May 1972, Justice. On Jоrdan, faculty representatives, approximately forty other students and Davison, President of Dr. Fred came to the offices of presenting University Georgia, purpose him with a for the housing hopefully petition disputes resolve сertain and to discuss and *3 University campus. Upon arrival, that had arisen on accompanying appellants Mr. thеm were met and those President, that Jones, and informed Albert to the attending meeting in Atlanta and President Davison was following day. It until the the record not return that at this time the spread throughout
delegation including approximately officеs, fifteen who were President’s assuring milling them inner office. After around the President’s upon return, their that the President would recеive Mr. Jones discussed with concerning grievances these students their housing policies, and informed them that following morning. Aрproximately President would see them the an hour after the appellants originally office, entered the had appellants requested they leave. This the refused Mr. Jones to do. After further discussion that group again Mr. told the Jones they that should leave. Safety Kassinger, Director of Public
Mr. Edward T. inquired University Georgia, present. He secretary secretary whether and Mr. Jones’ as to President’s being interrupted. replied Both secretaries in the work was their they all were He then informed those affirmative.