From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. Caldwell

Supreme Court of Georgia
Oct 10, 1972
193 S.E.2d 816 (Ga. 1972)

Opinion

27362.

SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 11, 1972.

DECIDED OCTOBER 10, 1972.

Habeas corpus. Tattnall Superior Court. Before Judge Caswell.

Lora Clark, pro se. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Assistant Attorney General, Courtney Wilder Stanton, W. Hensell Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.


Clark, petitioner in habeas corpus, appeals an order remanding him to custody following a hearing. He is held under a sentence imposed on November 19, 1968, pursuant to his plea of guilty to three counts of robbery. Held:

Although the record before us is silent as to any transcript of the action taken by the trial judge in receiving the guilty plea, the trial antedates the decision in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 ( 89 S.C. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274) (1969), which is not applied retroactively. Laidler v. Smith, 227 Ga. 759 ( 182 S.E.2d 891). A valid plea of guilty waives all known or unknown defenses. Snell v. Smith, 228 Ga. 249, 250 ( 182 S.E.2d 645). The habeas corpus judge as the trior of fact was authorized to determine from the evidence adduced at the hearing that the petitioner, contrary to his contentions and testimony, voluntarily pleaded guilty and submitted himself to the trial judge for sentencing with a full awareness of his rights and with the assistance of competent and experienced counsel who was present with him and that the trial judge took action to insure that he was acting voluntarily and knowingly. The appeal is without merit.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.


SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 11, 1972 — DECIDED OCTOBER 10, 1972.


Summaries of

Clark v. Caldwell

Supreme Court of Georgia
Oct 10, 1972
193 S.E.2d 816 (Ga. 1972)
Case details for

Clark v. Caldwell

Case Details

Full title:CLARK v. CALDWELL

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Oct 10, 1972

Citations

193 S.E.2d 816 (Ga. 1972)
229 Ga. 612

Citing Cases

Nazario v. State

2. (a) The State argues that we need not consider the merits of Appellant's merger claims, citing two of this…

Gerisch v. Meadows

Brown v. Ohio, supra, 432 U.S. at 166. Relying on United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 ( 109 SC 757, 102 LE2d…