lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
DUKES v. BALKCOM, Warden.
19269.
Habeas corpus. Before Judge Carr. Reidsville City Court. November 10, 1955.
ALMAND, Justice.
Jesse Dukes sought by writ of habeas corpus to obtain his release from the Georgia State Prison, it being claimed that he was illegally convicted of larceny, in that he was denied his rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because he did not have the benefit of counsel at the time of his plea of guilty and sentence by the court. It appears from the bill of exceptions that when the petition for habeas corpus was heard by the judge, evidence was introduced in the form of oral testimony and by affidavits, and the judgment remanding the petitioner to the custody of the respondent recites that the order was entered "after hearing evidence." The bill of exceptions assigns error on matters relating to the admission or rejection of evidence, and on the final order of remand.
Counsel for the respondent insists that the judgment must be affirmed, because if there is any error in the judgment or rulings complained of, their correctness or incorrectness is dependent entirely upon a consideration of the evidence introduced on the hearing, which is incorporated neither in the bill of exceptions nor in the record bearing the approval of the trial judge.
Smith v. Henderson, 190 Ga. 886 (1) (10 S. E. 2d 921); Attaway v. Duncan, 206 Ga. 230 (1) (56 S. E. 2d 269). In such a situation, no consideration can be given to any of the assignments of error in this case, for the reason that the merits Of such assignments of error can be passed upon only from a consideration of the evidence, and such evidence is not properly before us. We have to assume that the judgment is correct and affirm it, the burden being upon the plaintiff in error to show error by the record. Attaway v. Duncan, supra (2).
Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Robert H. Hall, E. Freeman Leverett, Assistants Attorney-General, J. Max Cheney, Deputy Assistant Attorney-General, contra.
Donald L. Hollowell, for plaintiff in error.
ARGUED FEBRUARY 14, 1956 -- DECIDED MARCH 12, 1956.
Saturday May 23 02:21 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com