Court Opinion

ID: 9846278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:38:31.746731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:46.061476
License: Public Domain

Hall, Presiding Judge,
dissenting. The Georgia and United States Constitutions do not promise merely the facade of legal representation to one accused of a crime. The right to counsel is an empty privilege if it does not comprehend the right of counsel to prepare. "The defendant needs counsel and counsel needs time.” Hawk v. Olson, 326 U. S. 271, 278 (66 SC 116, 90 LE 61).
1. Defendant was indicted and arrested in August of 1967. He immediately employed counsel, his brother-in-law, M. G. Hill, and Leroy Johnson. Upon his release from jail, these lawyers told him that his case had been "thrown out.” Three months later, while defendant was hospitalized in Atlanta, he learned through his wife that the sheriff had been to his house with a notice of arraignment. Defendant was released from the hospital on November 3 and tried to reach his lawyers. He discovered that Hill was in a hospital in New York and Johnson was out of town. He appeared alone at calendar call on November 6, but on November 7, the date set for trial, he appeared with an attorney, one Thompson, who requested a continuance on the ground of insufficient time to prepare. The court refused to grant a continuance but did set the case over to the next day when Thompson announced that he did not represent defendant. However, Attorney Maynard Jackson was in court and stated that he was there at the request of chief counsel Hill for the sole purpose of making, on Hill’s behalf, a motion for a continuance on the grounds that he was physically unable to be there and that he was specifically qualified to handle the case. Jackson further stated that he was absolutely unprepared to try the case. The court denied the motion and told Jackson he could have 30 minutes to prepare. The case came on for *299trial with Jackson acting as his counsel, and defendant was convicted.
In my opinion these circumstances fall squarely within the rule set out by this court in a recent case with very similar facts: "the constitutional mandate of this State is clear . . . that every defendant charged with a crime in this State is entitled to be defended by counsel of his own selection whenever he is able and willing to employ one, and uses reasonable diligence to obtain his services, and that where this appears he should not be deprived of representation by the counsel which he chose, or forced to trial with the assistance of counsel appointed by the court. . . The trial court erred in refusing to delay the trial at least sufficiently to determine whether it could be held with representation by selected counsel and without undue delay.” Long v. State, 119 Ga. App. 82, 84 (166 SE2d 365). See also Smith v. Greek, 226 Ga. 312 (175 SE2d 1); Fair v. Balkcom, 216 Ga. 721 (119 SE2d 691); Bagwell v. State, 56 Ga. 406; Dowda v. State, 119 Ga. App. 124 (166 SE2d 404).
Compare the facts in Long v. State, supra, with the case sub judice:
Long.
Trial had been previously postponed four times. The motion for continuance was seeking a fifth postponement.
Ground of motion was that the wife of his hired counsel was ill and necessitated counsel’s absence.
Motion made by counsel who was an associate of his hired counsel.
Time between indictment and date of trial was seven months.
McLendon.
Trial had been previously postponed for only one day from date set for trial. Motion for continuance made on this date.
Ground of motion was that his hired counsel was ill in New York and unable to attend trial.
Motion made by counsel who had no law practice relationship with his hired counsel.
Time between indictment and date of trial was three months.
*300Long.
Counsel who made motion said he was there for the sole purpose of moving for a continuance and not prepared to try case.
Trial court erred in refusing to delay the trial.
McLendon.
Counsel who made motion said he was there for the sole purpose of moving for a continuance and was not prepared to try case.
Trial court did not err in refusing to delay the trial.
It is true that the trial judge has a discretion as to the time allowed counsel to prepare his case. Where the question is one of weeks or days, the matter should in the main rest with the trial judge. In some rare circumstances, there may be an exercise of discretion even where the question is one of several hours. To say this discretion extends to a matter of minutes in a felony case is to reduce the right to prepared counsel to an absurdity.
2. The majority opinion raises sua sponte the question of whether the trial court’s ruling on the above question became the law of the case so as to eliminate defendant’s right to prepared counsel by means of a procedural maze.
Defendant’s first enumeration of error is on the denial of his motion for continuance without any reference to the dismissal of his motion for new trial. Code Ann. § 6-702 provides that a motion for a new trial need not be filed as a condition precedent to appeal, need not be transmitted as a part of the record on appeal (if the motion is made), and that it shall not be necessary that the overruling thereof be enumerated as error on appeal. Prior to Hill v. Willis, 224 Ga. 263 (161 SE2d 281), the Supreme Court decided three appeals from which the overruling of a motion for a new trial was not appealed, yet the court considered enumerations of error on the same questions which were raised in the motion for new trial. Worley v. State, 222 Ga. 319 (149 SE2d 682); Roach v. State, 221 Ga. 783 (147 SE2d 299); Dickerson v. Harvey, 221 Ga. 606 (146 SE2d 310). See in this regard the dissenting opinion of Justice Mobley in Hill v. Willis, supra, p. 269.
This procedure was modified in Hill v. Willis, supra. The Supreme Court, in a split decision, held that where a motion for new *301trial is overruled by the trial court, the judgment establishes the law of the case as to questions raised by the motion unless the judgment on this ruling is enumerated as error on appeal.
The doctrine of the law of the case "is nothing more than a special and limited application of the doctrine of res judicata.” 21 CJS 330, 331, § 195, citing Williams Realty &c. Co. v. Simmons, 188 Ga. 184 (3 SE2d 580); Simmons v. Williams Realty &c. Co., 185 Ga. 154 (194 SE 356). Both this court and the Supreme Court have consistently held that a dismissal is not "res judicata” or the "law of the case” so as to bar a subsequent ruling on the merits of a ground where the previous dismissal was not based upon the merits. Keith v. Darby, 104 Ga. App. 624 (1) (122 SE2d 463) and cases cited; O’Kelley v. Alexander, 225 Ga. 32 (165 SE2d 648); Barber v. Dunn, 226 Ga. 303 (174 SE2d 898); Bregman v. Rosenthal, 212 Ga. 95 (1) (90 SE2d 561).
It is clear therefore that the dismissal of a motion for new trial cannot be the law of the case as to the merits of the ground in the motion for new trial (that the trial court erred in denying a motion for continuance) so as to prevent this court from passing on a direct enumeration on this ground (denial of motion for continuance) from the final judgment.
The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that Hill v. Willis, supra, should not be extended beyond its specific holding. Tiller v. State, 224 Ga. 645 (164 SE2d 137); Gainesville Stone Co. v. Parker, 224 Ga. 819 (165 SE2d 296); Staggers v. State, 224 Ga. 839 (165 SE2d 300). It applies only where the motion for new trial has been overruled and there is no enumeration of error on this ruling.
It should be remembered that we are not only dealing with the defendant’s right of counsel under the Georgia Constitution but with the same right under the United States Constitution. The day is long past when state procedural devices can be created sua sponte to interfere with federally created rights. Brown v. Western R. of Alabama, 338 U. S. 294 (70 SC 105, 94 LE 100).
In my opinion the defendant has been deprived of his most basic right in a criminal prosecution — the right to prepared counsel in the actual trial of the case.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Jordan and Judges Eberhardt and Deen concur in this dissent.