Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/1975/29679-1.html
Timestamp: 2019-09-16 12:06:31
Document Index: 687522063

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 27', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 6', '§ 2', '§ 6', '§ 2']

Hall v. Hopper :: 1975 :: Supreme Court of Georgia Decisions :: Georgia Case Law :: Georgia Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Georgia Case Law › Supreme Court of Georgia Decisions › 1975 › Hall v. Hopper
Hall v. Hopper
234 Ga. 625 (1975)
216 S.E.2d 839
Submitted February 24, 1975.
On May 21, 1973, he was indicted for the February 9, *626 1973, burglary of the Long County Pharmacy. His July 25, 1973, trial on this indictment resulted in the first five year sentence.
In criminal cases, the statute of limitation runs (subject to special circumstances) from the time of the criminal act to the time of indictment. Code Ann. §§ 26-502 through 26-504; Code Ann. § 26-401 (o). Cf. Code § 27-601, not from time of the act to time of the trial.
The constitutional provisions requiring and guaranteeing "speedy trial" generally become operative when the accused is charged (Code Ann. § 2-105), i.e., when the prosecution commences (Code § 1-806).
In Treadwell v. State, 233 Ga. 468 (211 SE2d 760), this court examined Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101), where the Supreme Court of the United States identified four factors which it stated a court should weigh in deciding speedy trial questions, as follows: (1) length of delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) defendant's assertion of his right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Cf. Hughes v. State, 228 Ga. 593 (1) (187 SE2d 135). Regarding prejudice to the defendant, the court identified three interests to be served by the speedy trial requirement: (1) to prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration, (2) to minimize anxiety and concern of the *627 accused, and (3) most importantly, to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired.
From Barker, we conclude as follows: an extraordinarily lengthy delay (factor one five years), without valid reason (factor two four years tactical delay), is overcome where no prejudice greater than 10 months in jail plus 4 years anxiety and suspicion is shown *628 (factor four), and where the defendant did not want a speedy trial (factor three), i.e., where the defendant hoped that the delay would work to his benefit and that he would never be tried.
In the case before us, the extraordinary delay without reason shown by the record (see Treadwell v. State, supra) is overcome when no prejudice is shown and the petitioner did not want a speedy trial (he hoped he would never be tried). Although petitioner may have lived in anxiety and under a cloud of suspicion for over four years, he preferred that situation to going to trial. He does not appear to have been incarcerated for the 1969 burglary, at least not from the first mistrial in March 1970 until at least May 21, 1973 (so that his incarceration, if any on this charge, was comparable to Barker's 10 months).
He pled guilty (thereby acknowledging his guilt, the state's ability to prove his guilt, and the advantage to him of plea bargaining), and raised the speedy trial issue for the first time in this habeas corpus proceeding. At the habeas hearing, petitioner's attorney was unable to point to any way in which petitioner was prejudiced or his defense was impaired by the delay.
The evidence shows that following his conviction on July 25, 1973, petitioner, his wife and his attorney conferred at length on July 26 regarding pleading guilty to the other two charges. They discussed moving to suppress evidence in the arson case. (The petitioner had discussed the 1973 burglary with the district attorney in the absence of defense counsel under circumstances which suggested hope of benefit to petitioner; i.e., lack of *629 voluntariness. As for the arson, the circumstances were not analogous.) Petitioner's attorney explained that success on the motion to suppress the confession made to the sheriff regarding the arson was very doubtful and further that the evidence against petitioner as to the arson was such that petitioner stood a substantial likelihood of being convicted. See McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 770 (90 SC 1441, 25 LE2d 763).
In denying this ground of the petition, the court below considered Brown v. Holland, 228 Ga. 628 (9) (187 SE2d 246), where the defendant sent his wife to see his attorney about appealing the case and the attorney advised her there were no grounds for appeal. In Brown, this court said that the advisability of appealing a *630 conviction is a question to be determined by appointed counsel.
Having considered these two decisions, the court below rightly followed the earlier one, Brown v. Holland, pointing out that Brown was a full bench decision which was not expressly overruled by Thornton v. Ault. In support of its decision, the court below cited Code § 6-1611, the "full bench rule," which reads as follows: "A decision rendered by the Supreme Court prior to the first day of January 1897, and concurred in by three Justices, cannot be reversed or materially changed except by the concurrence of at least five Justices. Unanimous decisions rendered after said date by a full bench of six shall not be overruled or materially modified except with the concurrence of six Justices, and then after argument had, in which the decision, by permission of the court, is expressly questioned and reviewed; and after such argument, the court in its decision shall state distinctly whether it affirms, reverses, or changes such decision."
Under the Constitution of 1877, as amended in 1896, *631 it was provided that "The [supreme] court shall have power to hear and determine cases ... under such regulations as may be prescribed by the General Assembly." The Constitution of 1945 provides (Code Ann. § 2-3707): "The Supreme Court shall have power to hear and determine cases when sitting in a body, under such regulations as may be prescribed by it."
In Ward v. Big Apple Super Markets, 223 Ga. 756, 764 (158 SE2d 396), the court agreed that Code Ann. § 6-1611 "has not had legal existence since the adoption of the 1945 Constitution because ... Code Ann. § 2-3707 expressly withdrew the power of the General Assembly to enact regulations governing the manner in which this court could hear and determine cases ..." However, in Ward the court stated that it would, as a matter of policy, continue to require a unanimous decision to overrule a unanimous decision.
Since Ward, that policy has encountered difficulty in administration. See Felton, Justice, dissenting in Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Gates, 225 Ga. 824, 842 (171 SE2d 723); see also Grice, Presiding Justice, concurring specially in North Ga. Finishing v. Di-Chem, 231 Ga. 260, 266 (201 SE2d 321); see also Gunter, Justice, dissenting in Reece v. Pettijohn, 229 Ga. 619, 620 (193 SE2d 841), citing an article by D. Meade Feild and Lloyd Sutter, 19 Mercer L. Rev. 368, where it is said that Georgia's full bench rule is not recognized or followed "in the courts of any nation on earth which is sufficiently civilized to have a judicial system."
Stability and certainty in law are desirable; stare decisis is a valid and compelling basis of argument. Cobb *632 v. State, 187 Ga. 448, 452 (200 SE 796). It is not possible, however, to achieve unanimity in every case which reaches this court. When a majority of this court determines that stability must give way to justice to the prisoner, then justice prevails. The "full bench rule" has been repealed.
Judgment reversed with direction. All the Justices concur, except Nichols, C. J., Jordan and Ingram, JJ., who concur in the judgment only.