Court Opinion

ID: 9853694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:52:22.161448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:00.768039
License: Public Domain

On Motion For Rehearing.
Candler, Justice.
Since it appears from the allegations of the petition in this case that the attorney to whom the note and security deed were given did represent the maker threeof in person in the case in which he was employed until final judgment was rendered therein, Code §§ 9-615 and 9-616, and the case of Weed v. Bond, 21 Ga. 195, relied on by the maker, have no application here, for the reasons pointed out in Copeland v. Eubanks, 175 Ga. 198 (165 S. E. 3). It appears from the record that the charge pending against the person indicted was that of murder, and a plea of guilty was entered for involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act, which plea was signed not only by the attorney but also by the person charged. It cannot be said that the action of the attorney in procuring a disposition of the case by a plea of guilty for involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act—which carried, at the time the plea was entered, a maximum penalty of only three years (Code, § 26-1010)—was not for the best interest of the person charged, when, had he been tried on the charge of murder, he might have been convicted of that offense and given the extreme penalty of death by electrocution. See Copeland v. Eubanks, supra.

Rehearing denied,

Atkinson, P.J., and Head, J., dissenting.

*254Mitchell & Mitchell, for plaintiff.
Reuben A. Garland and Anthony A. Alaimo, for defendant.