*1 coming jurisdiction, under property from its seek a same. preventing latter, order The school board chose to do the not filed in court a complaint its stated claim for relief. It should by judge. been dismissed the trial I respectfully dissent.
amI authorized to state that Justices Jordan and concur in this dissent.
28427. WYNN v. CALDWELL. Justice. Ulious an Wynn appeals order of the Tattnall Jordan, County Superior 28, 1973, August Court dated his denying application writ of corpus and remanding him to the of the custody respondent.
The appellant was convicted on burglary charges by jury
Newton County Superior 7, 1972, Court on June and sentenced imprisonment. years appellant alleged The in his petition, among things, that certain evidence introduced at his trial seized in violation of his rights; that he received assistance from his court-appointed counsel before, during, trial; and after his and that he was denied commitment hearing prior to indictment the Newton County Held: no merit l.We find in these contentions and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. The was arrested on the morning 5, 1972, of January high speed police after a chase to a minor traffic violation. When the sheriff entered the appellant’s vehicle in order to drive it to jail, he noticed several items both the front and back of appellant’s seats car. TV, Among stereo, clothes, these items were a packages, and a plate bearing name Algood, name of Wiley Jr.
Upon reaching jail sheriff ordered an immediate
investigation Algood home in order to determine whether there had in fact been a burglary. investigation Algood home was carried out a deputy sheriff accompanied by the father of the homeowner. The results investigation dwelling indicated that burglarized. had been father the homeowner goods identified those found in appellant’s possession as belonging to his son. Subsequent returned to were
identification,
vehicle
suspect
time,
only,
at that time
were
Jail. At
removing
removed. While
car
those
screwdriver,
discovered
from the vehicle
the goods
gain
being the tool used to
possibly
the trial as
to at
later referred
complains
home. The
Algood
entry
*2
concerning the
testimony
and
into evidence
screwdriver entered
vehicle,
of his
violation
in his
constituted
objects
by the
they
in that
were seized
rights
In
the
or a search warrant.
our
an arrest
officers without
including
high speed
the
totality,
taken in their
circumstances
car,
chase,
of the TV and
stereo inside
presence
constitute
sufficient
plate,
the name
packages, and
Maroney,
Chambers v.
to
a search. See
cause
warrant
probable
419).
(90
1975,
to this it
26
In addition
42
SC
LE2d
399 U. S.
in
plain
all the
seized were
from the record that
appears
view
plain
as
would come under
of the officers and
such
view
(83
California,
1623, 10 LE2d
374
S. 23
SC
See Ker v.
U.
doctrine..
726),
286).
(179
State,
v.
57
SE2d
and Anderson
App.
123 Ga.
rendered
appointed
that his
counsel
2.
also contends
Appellant
before,
It
and after trial.
during,
representation
ineffective
for petitioner
counsel
appointed
from the record that
appears
trial,
before the
made a motion
him more than once
interviewed
witnesses,
sever,
all the state’s
adequately
to
cross examined
right
post-conviction appeal.
of his
to a
informed
concerning
adequacy
of counsel
in our mind
only question
any
counsel’s failure to examine
upon appointed
would center
However,
it
in the record of
appears
on voir dire.
jurors
that
counsel had been
corpus hearing
appellant’s
available
long
jurors
and was familiar with
present all week
decision,
appellant,
a conscious
concurred
made
We
just
any
as suitable as
others.
the first twelve would be
(167
588)
Perkins,
Estes v.
3.The
also claims that he
denied the
to a
hearing prior
commitment
County
his indictment
This court
has held
numerous occasions
that after indictment and
conviction the lack of a
will not be construed as reversible error.
(202
26);
v.
Arthur K. concurring specially. judgment Justice, I concur in the Gunter, *3 opinion. majority of affirmance but not with all that in the is said majority Division 3 of the holds the failure to accord not, a defendant a commitment will after indictment and my position conviction, be construed as reversible error. It is sought hearing, if an accused a commitment was denied a hearing, hearing, commitment did not waive then his conviction is erroneous failure on the be set and can aside because of
part procedural process of the state to accord him due my dissenting opinion of law. Ga. 430
Having convicting examined the record this case knowing voluntary I am satisfied that there was a waiver hearing, attorney. a commitment and his I am authorized to state that concurs in Justice this concurrence. & JONES CITIZENS SOUTHERN BANK. NATIONAL appeal summary judgment Justice. This is from Superior concluding Court of Laurens