Court Opinion

ID: 9624122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:51:43.684807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:39.436631
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
Although I concur fully in Division 2, I cannot do so with respect to Division 1. I do not find the law of Georgia to be more expansive currently than is federal constitutional law, with respect to right to counsel in misdemeanor cases.
The majority cites Lowrance v. State, 183 Ga. App. 421 (1) (359 SE2d 196) (1987), as establishing that indigents in all misdemeanor cases are entitled to counsel. However, Lowrance is physical precedent only, because two members of the panel concurred in the judgment only.
Brawner v. State, 250 Ga. 125 (2) (296 SE2d 551) (1982), was decided two years after the Supreme Court approved the Guidelines for Local Indigent Defense Programs (246 Ga. 837) (1980) and while OCGA § 17-12-4 as it presently exists was already in effect. In it the Supreme Court stated the law to be that “[a] defendant in a misdemeanor criminal prosecution is entitled to counsel only where the defendant is sentenced to actual imprisonment.” The Court cited the two leading federal constitutional cases and two Georgia cases. One of the State cases, Stillwell v. State, 161 Ga. App. 230, 231 (288 SE2d *799295) (1982), approved as correct the trial court’s ruling “that a defendant in a misdemeanor criminal prosecution is entitled to counsel only where the defendant is sentenced to actual imprisonment.” In applying the principle, the court concluded that, for the reason that defendant’s previous misdemeanors drew no imprisonment, they did not appear to be constitutionally invalid because of denial of assistance of counsel. I cannot conclude that the court overlooked or ignored OCGA § 17-12-4 or the Guidelines relied on in Lowrance. Instead, I am persuaded that they are construed to apply only to felonies and to misdemeanors where imprisonment is imposed.
Decided November 13, 1991.
Jimmy Lawal, pro se.
Keith C. Martin, Solicitor, Jackie N. Stanton, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.
Lawal was not sentenced to confinement, and thus he would not have been entitled to appointed counsel even if he had been indigent.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Carley joins in this special concurrence.