Noble v. StateNoble v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Quillian
The appellant and his son were jointly indicted fоr aggravated assault. The appellant wаs tried separately and convicted of simple battery. An appeal was then taken to this court. Held:
1. The appellant contends that thе trial judge erred in failing to delete his son’s name frоm the indictment which the jury took to the jury room. We find nо error in the judge’s action. Code § 27-2101, as amended (Ga. L. 1971, pp. 891, 892; 1972, pp. 618, 619).
2. The appellant argues that it was error to allow a witness to testify as to statements made by the defendant’s son, a co-conspirator, because the statements were made out of the appellant’s presence and after the alleged entеrprise had ended. The witness was called as a rebuttal witness to give impeachment testimony and therefore the admission of the evidence was not error.
3. The appellant assigns as еrror the admission of certain statements made by the appellant to a law enforcement officer which were made when the aрpellant’s counsel was not present. The appellant was advised of all of his rights and he stаted that he wanted to make a statement even though his attorney had advised him to the contrary. Since the appellant had thus waived his rights to сounsel, the admission of the *756 statements was not error.
4. The trial judge’s judgment datеd June 21, 1973 stated in part that the appellant “. . . be punished by confinement in said jail or place of confinement for twelve (12) months, to be cоmputed from this date . . .” It appears that the appellant in the case sub judice had spеnt some time in jail awaiting trial. Code § 27-2530, as amended (Ga. L. 1970, p. 692; 1972, p. 742) provides: “Each criminal defendаnt convicted of a crime in this state shall be given full credit for each day spent in confinement awaiting trial and for each day spent in cоnfinement, in connection with and resulting from an order entered in the criminal proceedings for which sentence was imposed, in any institution or faсility for treatment or examination of a physical or mental disability; such credit or credits shall be applied towards the convicted defendant’s sentence and shall also be considеred by parole authorities in determining the eligibility for parole.” The judgment entered was in conflict with the above quoted statement and direction is hereby given that the judgment be modified to comply with requirements of law.
5‘. The remaining enumerations of error are without merit.
Judgment affirmed with direction.
Bell, C. J., and Clark, J., concur.