*1 pro Lee, se. Jesse Keys,
Gaylen pro se. Benson,
Richard Joseph Wright, Webb, Solicitor,
James L. A91A2213.MERCIER et al. v. THE STATE. (417 Carley, Appellants jury Nuzum Mercier and were tried before a found protest of criminal violations committed in connection with their
against appeal jointly judgments abortion. from the of jury’s conviction and sentences entered the trial court on the guilty verdicts.
1. Nuzum has filed no enumeration of error or brief. (a), pursuant never order, 14 this court entered an to Rule (a) directing Nothing him to do so. Rule of this court authorizes the dismissal of a case wherein this court has itself failed to enter directing order enumeration of errors and brief filed. More- appeals over, conviction, since Nuzum from a criminal his failure to brief, file an enumeration errors and even if he had been ordered so, do State, would not result in a Lee dismissal. v. 203 Ga. 426) (1992). review of the record shows from the evidence adduced was authorized to find Virginia, doubt, of Nuzum’s Jackson v. 443 U. S. 307 SC 560) independent addition, 61 LE2d “our examina- transcript requir- tion of the record and has revealed no error lawof Accordingly, [Nuzum’s] reversal. conviction affirmed.” Allen Conyers See also (1987); DeBroux 2. was denied the assistance counsel. However, “[t]he trial court’s refusal to allow [someone], who is not a Georgia, member of the Bar at the defense table appellant’s [or defense] to conduct the was not a denial of con- right counsel, right. stitutional nor of to other constitutional right representation by ‘While an accused has a represent represented by non-lawyer himself, there is no party.’ [Cit.]” Cruickshank v. 223) (1988). The trial court was authorized to find that coupled public insis- defender, with his jection the assistance choosing, ‘the his own of counsel tence voluntary knowing equivalent of counsel. waiver functional may proceed de- to trial with the court an instance the trial In Phipps representing himself.’ fendant Turner See also *2 (1991). 512) (1) 836 he had been the accusations because Mercier moved dismiss
3. library. physical However, continuance, and law access to the denied remedy purported appropriate lack for dismissal, be the would not of expressly preparation. for a con declined Mercier ready announcement “[T]he for trial. tinuance and announced ready [Mercier’s] to a continuance. a waiver of constitutes Whatley State, 106 Ga. error, si induce asserted will ‘A defendant not allowed lently hoping acquittal, tactic a new trial when that for and obtain (Cits.)’ impermissible no and furnishes [Cit.] error is fails. ground ‘Induced (Cit.)’ 185, [Cit.]” Bess v.
for revérsal. (5) (369 SE2d allegations in the briefs
4. “This court will not consider factual by parties supported in the evidence contained record. which are not 348) 380, [Cit.]” Hurst (1991). Accordingly, Mercier’s we are unable to consider assertion wearing prison garb. that he was forced to while transcript, questions 5. Insofar as Mercier the correctness Zachary nothing [this] court to review.” “there sentencing phase, 6. Mercier counsel improper objection made an comment. no was the State concerned, it in the trial as the actual sentence is raised court. Insofar statutory beyond authority to review. is within the limits and our Sherrell v.
7. From the was authorized evidence adduced doubt, Jackson of Mercier’s find Virginia, supra. Birdsong, Judgments Sognier, J., J., C. P. affirmed. Cooper Beasley Pope, Andrews, Johnson, J., JJ., and
P. concur. part part. JJ., in concur in and dissent part. concurring part dissenting Judge, in in
Andrews, fully judgment affirming opinion concur my Lee v. conviction. For the reasons stated dissent 426) (1992), majority’s I dissent from the appeal. disposition of Nuzum’s part. Judge, dissenting
Beasley, charged and Nuzum were each in two accusa- (a) (two trespass §§ tions with criminal violation OCGA 16-7-21 counts) (b) (3) (two counts), resulting partici- and 16-7-21 from their pation occurring 31, on demonstrations December 1989 and Janu- ary They jointly 1990. tried and convicted of each offense. signed appeal, a notice of with both a certificate of service only signed designated friend,” someone as “next but Mercier has pursued it. appeal by To the extent there it should dis-
missed. See dissent Lee (1992). I do not reach the issue decided Division 1. among “pushed way 2. Mercier to 16 who their Planning Family Atlanta into” Northside Services on December they proceeded to throw chairs and handcuff themselves police to the furniture. The clinic administrator summoned the after response. receiving several times leave and no advised the them asked to leave. When no received sponse, arrested the demonstrators. *3 January 3, 1990,
On was in a who arrived They disregarded at the Feminist Women’s Health Clinic. “no tres- pass” signs proceeded past police porch barricades onto the facility, blocking manager the sat the entrance. The clinic group, herself identified on to the informed them and asked them to leave. refused and the presence were called. The same announcement was made the police, of the leave, and when the demonstrators refused were arrested. indigent,
Mercier, who is contends he was denied his request pro- counsel. written for the of counsel who born-again regularly, a Christian, fessed to be had attended church personal experience reading initially the Bible submitted withdrawn, later but extreme duress. on the assertion that it had been made under appellant At and other defendants refused the offer of coun- represented by specific person, sel, instead that a Georgia. a who explained non-lawyer not member the State Bar of When the court represented by defendants not entitled a party, they proceed pro objection, elected to se. Over appointed the court nonetheless to remain the court- throughout proceedings advisory capacity. room the in He had had to confer with each defendant. I concur Division 2. through concur Division as7 well as in Divisions 20, 1992. Johnny Mercier,
David James Jr., O’Brien, Solicitor, Roan, R. Lee Webb, Helen A. L. Solicitors, for Assistant THE STATE. TOOTLE v.
A92A0330. operating hav- a indicted for motor Defendant was (Count driving ing a mo- a habitual violator 2). (Count drugs of alcohol and under the influence tor vehicle while following: the On trial revealed adduced at The evidence Georgia Highway February stopped 11, 1990, defendant was Georgia just roadblock. Defend- a State Patrol south of Reidsville at Trooper produced informed Missouri driver’s license ant Georgia Johnny Georgia Kennedy [a “he had State Patrol that Trooper Kennedy ago.” long a com- license] conducted time driver’s driving puterized record and discovered roadside check of defendant’s Georgia driving privileges had been revoked because that defendant’s § under OCGA 40-5-58. a habitual violator he had been declared operating guilty motor vehicle after Defendant was found driving and not declared a habitual violator drugs. Defend- the influence of alcohol and vehicle while under motor Georgia, challeng- appealed Supreme Court of the State of ant Supreme constitutionality Court of OCGA 40-5-65. Appeals, stating appeal that there transferred the Court jurisdiction . . .” Held: this Court. “no basis In the trial court erred his first defendant contends preventing “any Dis- witness or the limine Attorney testifying commenting manner, trict from legal existence, *4 effect of OCGA Section 40-5-65.” substance or enumeration, erred contends the trial court his second defendant charge oper- verdict on the directed a habitual violator. ated motor erred final contends the trial court his charging defendant you charge i.e., 40-5-65, “I further contents of OCGA privilege to license or resident or nonresident whose driver’s suspended operate revoked, motor vehicle in this State has operate provided law, motor vehicle this shall not as under wise, by any permit jurisdiction or other- issued other license or suspension revocation, until the license or after such