Opinion
18431.
ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1954.
DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1954. REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 11, 1954.
Habeas corpus. Before Judge Frankum. Stephens Superior Court. October 12, 1953.
Robert Carpenter, Ferrin Mathews, for plaintiff in error.
Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Lamar Sizemore, Assistant Attorney-General, W. Dan Greer, contra.
A judge of the superior court has jurisdiction under the constitutional amendment (Ga. L. 1939, p. 78) to receive a plea of guilty in a county of his circuit other than the county in which the crime is alleged to have been committed.
ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1954 — DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1954 — REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 11, 1954.
Mrs. Othel Hall, acting in behalf of her husband, Othel Hall, brought habeas corpus proceedings against Walter Matthews, Superintendent of the Boys Industrial Training Institute at Toccoa, Georgia. Upon the hearing Hall was remanded to the custody of the superintendent.
The record discloses that Othel Hall had been charged in an accusation with the offense of molesting children. He waived indictment, copy of the accusation, list of witnesses, formal arraignment, and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a term of five years in the State Penitentiary at Reidsville. The crime with which he was charged was alleged to have been committed in Randolph County, and the accusation was pending against him in the Superior Court of Randolph County. While the accusation was thus pending, counsel for Hall telephoned the solicitor-general in Randolph County, and asked him to bring Hall to Miller County, at which time the judge of the Pataula Circuit had agreed to hear the matter. Randolph and Miller Counties are within the Pataula Judicial Circuit. The solicitor-general and the sheriff of Randolph County took Hall from the jail in Randolph County to the courthouse in Miller County on September 27, 1952, at which time and place the above-stated events occurred. In the oral argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the plaintiff in error stated that the judge of the Pataula Circuit resided in Miller County. The record is silent as to the age of Hall and as to why he was being confined in the Boys Industrial Training Institute.
At the hearing the petitioner abandoned all grounds in her habeas corpus petition with the exception of her contention that the plea and sentence were null and void, because the plea of guilty and the sentence thereon were entered in Miller County, whereas the crime was alleged to have been committed in Randolph County.
"All criminal cases shall be tried in the county where the crime was committed, except cases in the superior courts where the judge is satisfied that an impartial jury cannot be obtained in such county." Code § 27-1101; Constitution, art. VI, sec. XIV, par. VI (Code, Ann., § 2-4906).
Counsel for the plaintiff in error rely on Barrs v. State, 22 Ga. App. 642 ( 97 S.E. 86), involving a case where a defendant pleaded guilty in a county other than the county in which the crime was alleged to have been committed, and where it was held that "A party who has been tried and convicted by a court not having jurisdiction of the offense can not plead prior jeopardy if subsequently indicted for the same offense in a court having jurisdiction thereof."
The above decision was rendered prior to the constitutional amendment (Ga. L. 1939, p. 78) which declares that judges of the superior court "may, on reasonable notice to the parties, at any time, in vacation, at chambers, hear and determine, by interlocutory or final judgment, any matter or issue, where a jury verdict is not required, or may be waived." Constitution, art. VI, sec. IV, par. VIII (Code, Ann., § 2-3908).
Under the broad powers conferred by the above-stated constitutional amendment, the judge of the Pataula Circuit was not without authority while presiding in the Superior Court of Miller County, to receive the plea of guilty to a crime which was alleged to have been committed in Randolph County, and the judgment against the defendant in the Superior Court of Miller County was not void for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter.
Accordingly, the judge of the trial court did not err in remanding the defendant to the custody of the superintendent.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Duckworth, C. J., not participating.