From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 15, 1982
162 Ga. App. 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)

Opinion

63400.

DECIDED APRIL 15, 1982.

Aggravated assault. Gwinnett Superior Court. Before Judge Blackshear, Senior Judge.

Winship E. Rees, for appellant.

Bryant Huff, District Attorney, Steve Franzen, Johnny R. Moore, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.


Appellant appeals from his conviction of one count of aggravated assault on a police officer.

1. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in submitting the case to the jury without instructing the jury as to the form of their verdict in the event it found appellant guilty of the lesser included offense of simple assault. The record before us demonstrates that appellant made no request to charge on the lesser included offense of simple assault. See State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1, 2 ( 222 S.E.2d 354) (1976). Moreover, the record shows that appellant waived any objection to the charge as given. See White v. State, 243 Ga. 250 ( 253 S.E.2d 694) (1979). Furthermore, even assuming that such a request had been made and an objection to the failure to give it not been waived, under the evidence in the instant case no error would be shown. See Harper v. State, 127 Ga. App. 359, 360 (3) ( 193 S.E.2d 259) (1974).

2. Immediately prior to the call of the case, defense counsel was served with notice of appellant's prior convictions which would be offered in aggravation of punishment. Defense counsel's objection to consideration of these convictions in the sentencing phase was overruled. Citing Queen v. State, 131 Ga. App. 370 ( 205 S.E.2d 921) (1974), appellant urges that the state did not satisfy the notice requirement of Code Ann. § 27-2503 and that the trial court's consideration of the prior convictions requires reversal of appellant's sentence. As this court has previously noted, any holding in Queen that notice on the day of trial is insufficient compliance with the statute has been obviated by the Supreme Court's decision in Corbett v. State, 233 Ga. 756 ( 213 S.E.2d 652) (1975). See Taylor v. State, 149 Ga. App. 30, 32 (4) ( 253 S.E.2d 428) (1979). In Corbett, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of the predecessor statute to existing Code Ann. § 27-2503 was "to prevent the defendant from being surprised by the state's use of evidence in aggravation during the sentencing phase of the trial and to bar the use of such evidence when the defendant receives no notice of it before he is put on trial." (Emphasis supplied.) Corbett, 233 Ga. at 758, supra. It is clear in the instant case that, before appellant was put on trial, he received notice that his prior convictions would be offered in aggravation of punishment. See Franklin v. State, 245 Ga. 141, 149 (5) ( 263 S.E.2d 666) (1980). Thus, the state satisfied its obligation under the statute and if appellant were of the belief that such notice was insufficient to prevent the use of his prior convictions from constituting a "surprise," a motion for a continuance premised upon such grounds should have been made. See Taylor v. State, 149 Ga. App. at 32 (4), supra; Morrison v. State, 155 Ga. App. 234 (3) ( 270 S.E.2d 397) (1980). No such motion for a continuance was made in the instant case. "[S]o if [appellant] suffered any detriment the fault was his own. [Cit.]" Morrison, 155 Ga. App. at 235, supra.

Judgment affirmed. Quillian, C. J., and Shulman, P. J., concur.

DECIDED APRIL 15, 1982.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 15, 1982
162 Ga. App. 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAMS v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Apr 15, 1982

Citations

162 Ga. App. 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)
290 S.E.2d 341

Citing Cases

Wynn v. State

The State did not include certified copies of the prior convictions with the notice, but made the copies…

Pruitt v. State

Because the State provided adequate notice to Pruitt, and counsel chose to move forward at sentencing without…