Opinion ID: 1344103
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Remaining Errors Enumerated

Text: 3. Hance's present attorney, without the knowledge or permission of his resentencing trial counsel, tape-recorded a telephone conversation between them more than a week before the habeas hearing. Hance contends his trial counsel's testimony at the habeas hearing must be disregarded in its entirety pursuant to OCGA § 24-9-85 (b) [6] because it contradicted the statements he made on the telephone. Trial counsel did not willfully and knowingly swear falsely and his testimony was not such as to make manifest a purpose to falsify. Cargill v. State, supra, 255 Ga. 616, 641. The provision is not applicable, and we find no error in Hance's second enumeration of error. 4. Hance contends in his third enumeration of error that the habeas court erred in finding a state procedural default as to certain issues that were timely raised in the trial court but not specifically enumerated as error on direct appeal. He argues that issues timely raised in the trial court are automatically raised by the Unified Appeal Procedure. [7] This court reviewed the resentencing trial pursuant to . . .Rule IV (B) (2) of the Unified Appeal Procedure. . .[and concluded] that the sentence of death is supported by the evidence according to law, and was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor. Hance v. State, supra, 254 Ga. 575, 579. Our review of the resentencing record in Hance v. State, id., indicated that no issue timely raised in the trial court but not specifically enumerated as error on appeal rose to the level of plain error. See United States v. Fuentes-Coba, 738 F2d 1191, 1196 (11th Cir. 1984). The habeas court did not err in finding a state procedural bar to enumerations of error numbers 6, 7, 11, 15, 17, and 23. 5. When conflict of interest is raised in a post-conviction proceeding, the petitioner must show actual conflict which caused his counsel's performance to be adversely affected. [Cit.] Wharton v. Thomas, 256 Ga. 76, 77 (343 SE2d 694) (1986). Hance has shown no actual conflict, and we find no error in the appellant's fourth enumeration of error. 6. Enumerations of error 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 22 were previously decided adversely to the appellant by this court. 7. Hance asserts in his eighteenth enumeration of error that the charge on intent given during his original trial was burden shifting under Francis v. Franklin, 471 U. S. 307 (105 SC 1965, 85 LE2d 344) (1985). Hance previously contended this charge was burden shifting under Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (99 SC 2450, 61 LE2d 39) (1979). However, neither the state habeas court nor the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found any merit to this contention. Hance v. Zant, 696 F2d, supra at 953. More recently, the Eleventh Circuit held that a charge with identical language, i.e., that intent  may be inferred from the proven circumstances or by acts and conduct, or it may be presumed when it is the natural and necessary consequences of the act. .. Hill v. Kemp, 833 F2d 927, 930 (11th Cir. 1987), does not violate either Sandstrom v. Montana, supra, 442 U. S. 510 or Francis v. Franklin, supra, 471 U. S. 307. We find no error. 8. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits states from inflicting the death penalty upon a prisoner who is insane. Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399 (106 SC 2595, 91 LE2d 335) (1986). Consideration of the appellant's present sanity is premature because his execution is not imminent. We find no error in the appellant's nineteenth enumeration of error. 9. Hance has submitted numerous pro se briefs to this court. An examination of the pro se briefs and errors enumerated therein do not reveal any errors that should be considered in the interest of justice. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.