18 S.E.2d 685 | Ga. | 1942
Rulings of law on exceptions to denial of writ of habeas corpus and remand of applicant to custody, after conviction of murder and overruling of motion for new trial.
Assignment of error abandoned by non-reference in brief of counsel.
1. (a) The evidence authorized a finding that the defendant *380
was not denied the right to employ counsel, as contended, but that on the contrary he stated to the court that he was unable to employ counsel, and attorneys were then appointed for him, at his request. Compare Delk v. State,
(b) Also, under the evidence, the judge was authorized to find against the contention of the applicant as to incompetency of the appointed attorneys and the quality of their services. SeeSimmons v. State,
2. As to excusing the juror, the evidence, though partly circumstantial in nature on this point, was sufficient to authorize a finding that at the time, and in the presence of the court, the accused was consulted by his counsel, and expressly assented, as he had the right to do. Code, § 102-106; Sarah v.State,
3. Under the preceding rulings, the judgment remanding the applicant to custody was not erroneous, as insisted; and this is true regardless of whether, as to the contentions now made, the applicant should be held concluded by his failure to include them in his motion for a new trial, or at least in the amendment thereto, as prosecuted by one of his present counsel. On this question and as to the remedy of habeas corpus, see Frank v.State,
4. The bill of exceptions contained an assignment of error on the admission of stated evidence upon the habeas-corpus trial. The original brief filed in this court contained only a statement of the facts, with a further statement that "plaintiff in error will file a supplemental brief setting out his law and argument." In the supplemental brief later filed there was no reference to assignment of error on the admission of evidence. In the circumstances this assignment will be treated as abandoned.Morris v. Bullock,
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.