Eddie James Jones appeals from the judgment of the Supеrior Court of Habersham County denying his petition for the writ of habeas corpus and remanding him to the custody of the Superintendent of the Georgia Industrial Institute.
The record reveals thаt on May 18,1970, the appellant entered pleas of guilty to 25 counts of burglary, one count of motor vehicle theft and one count of rape. The pleas were signed by thе appellant and his two attorneys. At a hearing on May 22, 1972, with the appellant and both attorneys present, his pleаs were accepted by the Superior Court of Bibb County. Hоwever, at the request of the district attorney prosecuting these cases, *311 sentencing was postponed until after disposition of the appellant’s co-defendants’ cases.
Subsequently, on May 25, 1972, the appellant was sentenсed to life imprisonment on the rape charge, seven years for the motor vehicle theft to be served concurrently with the life sentence, and 15 years on each оf the burglary counts to be served concurrently with each оther and the life sentence.
In June of 1972 the appellant filed his habeas corpus petition alleging illegal restrаint for eight reasons, none of which is relevant here. Upon the hearing appellant’s appointed counsеl for the first time alleged that the appellant was not represented by counsel when he was sentenced, which is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding; and thаt it was error for the trial court to fail to advise him of his right to have an attorney present.
On September 1,1972, the trial court entered its order denying the writ and remanding the appellant to custody. No findings of fact or conclusions of law werе made.
No transcript of the sentencing in the trial court аppears in the record. The only evidence presented at the habeas corpus hearing on the questiоn involved here was the testimony of the appellant, but since this contention was not raised in the appellant’s petition, the respondent had no opportunity to arrаnge for rebuttal witnesses or other such evidence.
However, "The burden is on the applicant to make out his cаse, that is, to prove to the satisfaction of the habеas corpus judge that the alleged violation of his cоnstitutional rights did, in fact, occur. [Citations]”
Sims v. Smith,
"The question of determining credibility of testimony in a habeas corpus hearing is vested in the hearing judge. [Citations]”
Nelson v. Smith,
*312 Since the appellant’s allegations were supported only by his own testimony, which was itself contradictory as to some details, it was not an abuse of the habeas corpus court’s discretion to сhoose not to believe that the appellant’s rights had been violated.
Judgment affirmed.