Attorney's Working Files Vol. 1 of 5 (Redacted)

144 pages

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Date is approximate. Primarily consists of Court Documents from Georgia v. Wright dated 1989-1990.

Impact area
- Criminal Justice
Topic
- Capital Punishment
LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorney
- Robert Stroup
Organizations
- LDF
- Stroup & Coleman
Matter
- McCleskey v. Kemp
Case
- Clemency Request
U.S. state
- Georgia
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- bd1f6b1d-eac9-ef11-b8e8-7c1e520b5bae

Cite this item

Case Files, McCleskey Background Materials. Attorney's Working Files Vol. 1 of 5 (Redacted), 1991. bd1f6b1d-eac9-ef11-b8e8-7c1e520b5bae. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/3adc194c-dad9-4721-973b-d0a90a7223da/attorneys-working-files-vol-1-of-5-redacted. Accessed November 23, 2025.

Copied!

Paw yews. Wee

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

- STATE OF GEORGIA

THE STATE OF GEORGIA )

)
Vs. ) CRIMINAL ACTION

)
BEN WRIGHT, ) INDICTMENT NO. Z16064

)
Defendant. )

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF ALL
EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT

AND NOTICE TO PRODUCE

COMES NOW BEN WRIGHT, Defendant in the above-styled case

who, by and through his attorney, moves this Court for an

Order allowing counsel for the Defendant permission to in-

spect and copy the following tangible objects in the posses-

sion, custody or control of the State of Georgia, through its

agent, the District Attorney of Fulton County, the existence

of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may

' become known, to the attorney aforementioned; and to order

the production of information and items listed below pursuant

to 0.C.G.A. Section 24-10-26 and Section 24-10-29. Defendant

respectfully requests production of the following:

A list of all witnesses who will be called by the State

to testify.

A amy sat

FILED IN OFFICE
BZ231

| : oes anos Zoikd pe ¢ rrerpran AAURT
\ sh... PR FR Sag) F, “ew

{

DE [IE A RAN

FULIN QOUNTY GECRGIA

Any and all statements, confessions, or admissions

allegedly made by this Defendant, whether written or oral,

within the possession, custody or control of the State. This

request includes statements made to witnesses other than

police officers at any time that the Defendant was in cus-

tody, as well as the precise words attributed to the Defen-

dant.

Any and all criminal records of any witnesses whom the

State intends to give testimony.

All results or reports, and all notes or other recorda-

tion of data of scientific tests and examinations arguably

relevant to this case, including examinations of any prosecu-

tion witnesses. This request seeks such information regard-

less of whether or not the test results would be used by the

State at trial.

A list of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of

all witnesses or other persons who have furnished information

pertaining to these charges insofar as is known to the State,

| whether or not they will be called as witnesses.

a0 200 pice 210

Any and all materials known to the State or which may

become known, or which through due diligence may be learned

from the investigating officers or the witnesses or the

persons having knowledge of this case, which is exculpatory

in nature or favorable to the accused or which may lead to

exculpatory or favorable material or which might serve to

mitigate punishment, including any evidence impeaching or

contradicting testimony of State witnesses or instructions to

State witnesses not to speak with or discuss the facts of

this case with defense counsel. This request includes, but

is not limited to, any consideration or promises made to, or

for the benefit of, the State's witnesses including witness

fees, transportation assistance, any animosity expressed by

any witness towards the Defendant, and all information which

could arguably create an interest or bias of the witness

against the Defendant or act as an indictment to color their

testimony; any information showing misconduct or bade acts by

the witness.

Any and all photographs, including Defendant's photo-

graphs, viewed by witnesses for the purpose of identifying

the Defendant.

- —— a. Con ly pt SE A DE as It ANC WR SAN mtn ag X hay a TE THC RE

i
|

Any and all police incident reports prepared immediately

after, or within a reasonable time after the incident which

forms the basis of this indictment.

Defendant states that the information requested above is

within the exclusive control of the State and is essential to

the Defendant's preparation for trial, as mandated by the Due

Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and is

otherwise material in the preparation of the trial, and is

reasonably requested with no great administrative burden upon

the State of Georgia.

10.

Defendant asks that the Court review the prosecution's

file in camera regarding the foregoing items requested. The

State has a duty to disclose to the Defendant evidence that

is either exculpatory or material, non-cumulative and favor-

able to his defense. This duty is derived from Due Process

requirements and is an affirmative one.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that this Honor-

able Court enter an Order granting the above-requested dis-

covery, and reserving Defendant's right to supplement and

aot 200 pr 2 (3

amend his Motion as the disclosure of information provides

further bases for relief.

Respectfully submitted,

How Op

H, Pierre, Jr.
Attorney for Sotaneny

230 Peachtree Street, N.W.
Suite 900
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
404/524-0747

|
A

i
|

STATE OF GEORGIA

|
. THE STATE OF GEORGIA

VS. CRIMINAL ACTION

BEN WRIGHT, INDICTMENT NO. Z16064

N
o
’

N
o

N
N

N
S

Defendant.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

AND INSPECTION AND NOTICE TO PRODUCE

Statement of the Case

| The Defendant, Ben Wright, is a forty-seven (47) year old Black male. He is charged with three (3) Counts of Armed Robbery and one (1) Count of Theft by Receiving Stolen Pro-

perty.

ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY

Pursuant to Brady v, Maryland, 373 8.5. 83 (19583),

0.C.G.A. Section 17-7-210, Section 17-7-211, Section 24-10-

26, and Section 24-10-29, the Defendant is entitled to copies
of the information sought to be produced in their motion.

Due process requires that the requested information be pro-

vided to the defense, sufficiently in advance of trial in

jorder for counsel for Defendant to examine them and prepare

their defense.

| s00t 20UD pect 280 |

Ws ve re ibs 0G TE Ml ~ w/in RE YORE RA

CONCLUSION

In order for the Defendant to adequately prepare his

defense to the charges listed in the indictment, the Court is

moved to order the State to produce certain documents and

information germane to the defense and exclusively within the

possession and control of the State. The production of the

information requested can be accomplished with no great

administrative burden upon the State of Georgia. Due Process

requires that said documents be provided to the defense,

sufficiently in advance of trial in order to Be: meaningful.

Respectfully submitted,

NC On,
Pierre, Jr.

bal for Seto,

230 Peachtree Street, N.W.

Suite 900
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
404/524-0747

BOOK 2505 PACE 281

BM~61AR MCA 10-21-89
060521
BM-47NA
BM-17AR
525292

BPS: WITNESSES:

C. W. Brown

C. B. Fulse

C. M. Long
D. Belt

V. Hudson

R. L. Moman

D. L. Depina
T. L. Broiles
M. J. Barrett

R. Hall

JRonathan Roper
46 Orlando Dr.

Atlanta, Ga. 30311

Timothy Williams
5514 Rock Rd.

«Union City, Ga. 30291

Shirley Robinson
c/o C & S Bank
562 Lee St.

Effie Holmes
2905 Springdale Rd. #U-7
Atlanta, Ga. 30315

Cynthia Starks

6935 oOak Hill Circle

Lot #61
Austell, Ga. 30001

Bryan Doby
864 Arbor Hill Dr.
Stone Mountain , Ga. 30088

Beverly Stalls

2495 0ld Hapeville Rd.
College Park, Ga. 30349

=
Rat. Christine Harper w

ee 16064 Phyllis Philpot =
Clerks No... Tr a a, ne c/o C & S Bank <n

\ 0 Zt AL iis fi Rh 2358 Cascade Rd. S.W. -
Tr y a2

FULTON SUPERIOR COURT &3

4 [Rie Huda.

THE STATE ERE 50y of indictments, list of witnesses,

vs. fii panel Adina arraignment and pleads.

IIMMIE LEE STARKS, BEN. WRIGHT and Eric NOT OUILTY
HOWARD J

ARMED ROBBERY. (THREE COUNTS) - -and- - Car a
THEFT BY RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY ~ District Attorney

| T#eg. Bil {Irena A WA
Y 728 of dANY ny 19 Po ~~ Defendants Gl

: Xz pile LR hy
va SE Gio... FD. & vel... Foreman p Dgfondant (

= AD
\ A ce. a fs Q-mmie Lee Sheks Ben pright

waives copy of indictment, list of witnesses, full waives copy of indictments, list of witnesses,
panel, formal arraignment, and SL gr full panel, formal arraignment and pleads.

. | Dist. Atty. Mot Guilty

MT Deft's. Atty. ots R. 20.0. tows)

Wo Deft. WG District Aftoxney

Send 19fl ——te,,
Defendant's Attorney

WT Gul) Son Lust 4
Defendant

2s 15th day of Feb. 1949p

vv}

/
. . —

STATE OF GEORGIA, COUNTY OF FULTON.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAID COUNTY.

THE GRAND JURORS selected, chosen and sworn for the County of Fulton, to-wit:

W
O
N

H
W
N

“
e
e

o
i
e
.

Cidju Emir, Foreman 14.
Robert A. Greenway, Asst. Foreman 15.
Wendy H. Green, Secretary 16.

+ ‘Amanda B. Dodson, Asst. Secretary 17.
Josephine J. Bandy 18.
Sharon F. Bates 19.
Linda J. Farris 20.

.« Freddie P. Hall, Jr. 21.
Dorothy S. Henderson bY 4

. # 4 LI J HIGITCEE 23.

. Anne B. Jackson 24.
. David B. Johnson 25.

Michael Garry Kimble
Ronald G. Loden

El el i LL
Kathryn A. Mills
Charles Pharms

John J. Shields
Minh Tan Tran
Melissa A. Wambo
Evelyn K. Wells
Johnny H. Williams

Al)
-— 1S

in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charge and accuse

JIMMIE LEE STARKS, BEN WRIGHT and ERIC HOWARD

Jerry D. Wright, 1st. Alt.
EA An thane

with the offense of: —

ARMED ROBBERY

for that said accused, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on the

October 4th day of
’

did unlawfully, with the intent to commit theft, take from the person

and immediate presence of Phyllis Philpot the following property, to

wit: a sum of money, of value, and the property of the said Phyllis

Philpot, as bailee, by intimidation and by use of a pistol, the same

being an offensive weapon; -

contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.

LEWIS R. SLATON, District Attorney

Special Presentmeng.. #17 4 PASE 117

19 89

COUNT TWO

: THE GRAND JURORS, selected, chosen and sworn for the County of Fulton aforesaid, in the name
and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charge and accuse

JIMMIE LEE STARKS, BEN WRIGHT and ERIC HOWARD

with the offense of ARMED ROBBERY

for that the said accused person in the County aforesaid, on the

5th day of October 19 89

did unlawfully, with the intent to commit theft, take from the person

and immediate presence of Shirley Robinson and Jonathan Roper the

following property, to wit: $9,711.00 in money, of value, and the

property of the said Shirley Robinson and Jonathan Roper, as bailees,

by intimidation and by use of a pistol, the same being an offensive

weapon; -

contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.

FULTON SUPERIOR COURT LEWIS R. SLATON, District Attorney

Special Presentment

rend 14m 418

COUNT THREE

THE GRAND JURORS, selected, chosen and sworn for the County of Fulton aforesaid, in the name

and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charge and accuse

JIMMIE LEE STARKS, BEN WRIGHT and ERIC HOWARD

with the offense of ARMED ROBBERY

for that the said accused person in the County aforesaid, on the

Sth day of October 19 80

did unlawfully, with the intent to commit theft, take from the person

and immediate presence of Timothy Williams the following property, to

wit: one gold nugget ring with six diamonds, of value, and the

property of the said Timothy Williams, by intimidation and by use of a

pistol, the same being an offensive weapon; -

contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.

FULTON SUPERIOR COURT: LEWIS R. SLATON, District Attorney

: Special Presentment

ae ex2114ma 410

COUNT FOUR

THE GRAND JURORS, selected, chosen and sworn for the County of Fulton aforesaid, in the name

and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charge and accuse

JIMMIE LEE STARKS, BEN WRIGHT and ERIC HOWARD

with the offense of THEFT BY RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY

for that the said accused person in the County aforesaid, on the

5th day of - October : 19 89

did unlawfully receive and retain the following stolen property, to

wit: one 1985 Oldsmobile Delta 88 automobile, a motor vehicle, the

property of George Whitman, said motor vehicle having been stolen from

the said George Whitman on October 3, 1989 and said accused should

have known said property was stolen; said motor vehicle not having

been received and retained by accused with intent to restore the same

to its owner; -

contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.

FULTON SUPERIOR COURT LEWIS R. SLATON, District Attorney

Special Presentment

Se tay ix 21 14 mee 421

STATE OF GEORGIA YOU MUST BE PRESENT AND MAY BE REPRE-

FULTON COUNTY SENTED BY A LAWYER. IF YOU ARE FREE ON
CALENDAR NOTICE APPEARANCE BOND AND FAIL TO APPEAR, YOUR

. BOND WILL BE SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE AND A
WARRANT MAY ISSUE FOR YOUR RE-ARREST. STATEVS. WRIGHTs BEN

INDICTMENT NO. 1160564 58

: DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO

THIS CASE IS SET UPON A (1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (730-5242) YOUR

TRIAL BONDS 240 1 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE OF ANY

CALENDAR FOR MARCH Se 1990
| IN NT | M ICATI T AWYER. IF AT 900AM . FULTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE, @ MANTA CONTINU NG COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR LAWYE

BEFORE THE HONORABLE (3) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (730-5242) OF THE
DON LANGHAM NAME OF YOUR LAWYER.
JUDGE, FULTON SUPERIOR COURT, CRIMINAL (4) BE PRESENT WITH YOUR LAWYER AT THE TIME AND PLACE

INDICATED ON THIS NOTICE:
DIVISION

(5) BE AWARE THAT FAILURE TO APPEAR WITH YOUR LAWYER ON THE
THIS 26 DAYOF FEBRUARYs 1990 DATE SET MAY RESULT IN YOUR BEING FOUND IN CONTEMPT

OF COURT:
JUANITA HICKS (6) NOTIFY THE COURT IMMEDIATELY IF IT SHOULD APPEAR THAT UPON

- CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT - TRIAL OR ARRAIGNMENT YOU MAY NOT BE REPRESENTED BY
ADDRESSEE: A LaWyze

(7) BRING THIS NOTICE TO COURT ON THE REQUIRED DATE
216064-D-1

WRIGHT, BEN
1881 LSKREOOF SBR
ATLANTA, GA 30315

A COPY OF THIS NOTICE IS PERMANENTLY RETAINED IN YOUR CASE FILE

J
A

reli tL HG. PE wv NIT HARARE RL

: g IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
5 STATE OF GEORGIA

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FORM

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF GEORGIA

CASE No. Z [60 6Y

V
t

N
s

a
l

w
t
?

a
t

n
t

a
t
t

“
w
u
d

“
u
i
t

Notice is provided pursuant to the Uniform Rules for the

Superior Court, Section 4.2 of the entry in the above referenced

action representing: ra nan
oJ

who is a EXILREIEL/ defendant in the above styled action.

This ;S= day of Fel. 199 CO

“FILED IN OFFICE d=. 4
r 8 SIGNED _Preang
, FEB | 61990 >

(lis SUPCRIO ; oe, TYPED NAME a any he

Sn MAILING ADDRESS AD fl ee fi te Sd NTU

ATT Sov
Oecd a 305%

TELEPHONE NO. __ 22% — CO 14

\
i

lis
sick 2003 re: 225

STATE OF GEORGIA
FULTON COUNTY
CALENDAR NOTICE

sTATEvs. WRIGHTs BEN

INDICTMENT NO. 216064 ts

THIS CASE IS SET UPON A
TRIAL
CALENDAR FOR APRIL 99 1990

AT 900AM FULTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE,

BEFORE THE HONORABLE
DON LANGHAM

JUDGE, FULTON SUPERIOR COURT, CRIMINAL

DIVISION :
THIS 3 DAYOF APRILy 1990

JUANITA HICKS

CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT

ADDRESSEE:

YOU MUST BE PRESENT AND MAY BE REPRE-

SENTED BY A LAWYER. IF YOU ARE FREE ON

APPEARANCE BOND AND FAIL TO APPEAR, YOUR

BOND WILL BE SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE AND A

WARRANT MAY ISSUE FOR YOUR RE-ARREST.

DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED T0

11) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (730-5242). YOUR
BONDSMAN. AND THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE OF ANY
CHANGE OF ADDRESS.

2) MAINTAIN CONTINUING COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR LAWYER. IF

YOU HAVE ONE:

i3) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (730-5242) OF THE
NAME OF YOUR LAWYER

(4) BE PRESENT WITH YOUR LAWYER AT THE TIME AND PLACE
INDICATED ON THIS NOTICE:

(5) BE AWARE THAT FAILURE TO APPEAR WITH YOUR LAWYER ON THE
DATE SET MAY RESULT IN YOUR BEING FOUND IN CONTEMPT
OF COURT:

(6) NOTIFY THE COURT IMMEDIATELY IF IT SHOULD APPEAR THAT UPON
TRIAL OR ARRAIGNMENT YOU MAY NOT BE REPRESENTED BY
A LAWYER.

BRING THIS NOTICE TO COURT ON THE REQUIRED DATE.

WRIGHTy BEN
1881 LSKREOCF S8K

ATLANTA» GA 30315

A COPY OF THIS NOTICE IS PERMANENTLY RETAINED IN YOUR CASE FILE

STATE OF GEORGIA
FULTON COUNTY
CALENDAR NOTICE

STATE VS. ntluiTsy Li

INDICTMENT NO. cl0Jut 1il

THIS CASE IS SET UPON A
TRIAL

CALENDAR FOR Ju..c 159 1970

AT 9UUAM FULTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE,
BEFORE THE HONORABLE
DON LANGHAM

JUDGE, FULTON SUPERIOR COURT, CRIMINAL

DIVISION :

THIS 39 pAYOF MAYs 199C

JUANITA HICKS
CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT

ADDRESSEE:
216064-D-1

KRIGHTy SEN
1881 LSKREUCF 3581
ATLANTAy GA 30315

YOU MUST BE PRESENT AND MAY BE REPRE-

SENTED BY A LAWYER. IF YOU ARE FREE ON

APPEARANCE BOND AND FAIL TO APPEAR, YOUR

BOND WILL BE SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE AND A

WARRANT MAY ISSUE FOR YOUR RE-ARREST.

DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO:

(1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (730-5242), YOUR
BONDSMAN. AND THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE OF ANY
CHANGE OF ADDRESS.

MAINTAIN CONTINUING COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR LAWYER. IF
YOU HAVE ONE:

IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (730-5242) OF THE
NAME OF YOUR LAWYER.

BE PRESENT WITH YOUR LAWYER AT THE TIME AND PLACE
INDICATED ON THIS NOTICE

BE AWARE THAT FAILURE TO APPEAR WITH YOUR LAWYER ON THE
DATE SET MAY RESULT IN YOUR BEING FOUND IN CONTEMPT
OF COURT:

NOTIFY THE COURT IMMEDIATELY IF IT SHOULD APPEAR THAT UPON
TRIAL OR ARRAIGNMENT YOU MAY NOT BE REPRESENTED BY
A LAWYER;

(7) BRING THIS NOTICE TO COURT ON THE REQUIRED DATE

“4

A COPY OF THIS NOTICE IS PERMANENTLY RETAINED IN YOUR CASE FILE

FINAL DISPOSITION SC-6

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY FINAL DISPQSITION

STATE OF GEORGIA

VS.

4 i ’

7 hx 0 JURY O VERDICT: O OTHER DISPOSITION
IATED

a O NON-JURY O GUILTY ON O NOLLE PROSEQUI ORDER ON
$ UILTY ON COUNT(S) trl COUNT(S) aa)
© O NOLO CONTENDERE O O NOT GUILTY ON EAD DOCKET SYDER ON
s COUNT(S). COUNT(S) COUNT(S). r
£ O TO LESSER INCLUDED O GUILTY OF INCLUDED (SEE SEPARATE ORDER)

OFFENSE(S) OFFENSE(S) OF
OI COUNT(S) ON COUNT(S)
EFENDANT WAS ADVISED OF HIS/HER RIGHT TO-HAVE THIS SENTENCE REVIEWED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT'S SENTENCE REVIEW PANEL

FELONY SENTENCE O MISDEMEANOR SENTENCE

g WHEREAS, the above-named defendant has been found guilty of the bovs-stated offense. WHEREUPON, it is ordered and adjudged by the Coury that: Thy said defendant

is barely spntenced to confinemept for a pgfiod of ~a Ald < I'L (0 JX = Nl» Zi a A

(IAL hatin 1.0m 1]9/90 Fall O0linta £8nl Lies ad br CONC aM Lb 14) [2.1505
in the State Penal System or such othgf stitution as th¢ Cofamissioner of the State Department of Corrections or Court may direct, to be computed as provided by law.
HOWEVER, it is further ordered by fh Court

O 1) THAT the above sentence may be served on probation

O 2) THAT upon service of the above sentence, the remainder of may be served

on probation PROVIDED that the said defendant complies with the following general and other conditions herein imposed by the Court as a part of this sentence.

O 3) THAT the above sentence be suspended.

O GENERAL CONDITIONS OF PROBATION

The defendant, having been granted the privilege of serving all or part of the above-stated sentence on probation, hereby is sentenced to the following general conditions of

probation:

O 1) Do not violate the criminal laws of any governmental unit.

DO 2) Avoid injurious and vicious habits - especially alcoholic intoxication and narcotics and other dangerous drugs uniess prescribed lawfully.

O 3) Avoid persons or places of disreputable or harmful character.

0 4) Report to the Probation-Parole Supervisor as directed and permit such Supervisor to vist him (her) at home or elsewhere.

O 5) Work faithfully at suitable employment insofar as may be possible.

O 6) Do not change his (her) place of abode, move outside the jurisdiction of the Court, or leave the State for any period of time without prior permission of the Probation

Supervisor.

O 7) Support his (her) legal dependants to the best of his (her) ability.
O 8) Probationer shall, from time to time upon oral or written request by any Probation Officer, produce a breath, urine, and/or blood specimen for analysis for the possible

presence of a substance prohibited or controlled by any law of the State of Georgia or of the United States.

O OTHER CONDITIONS OF PROBATION

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant pay a fine in the amount of $ plus $50 or 10%, whichever is less pursuant to O.C.G.A. 15-21-70 plus 10% of

the original fine pursuant to O.C.G.A. 15-21-90 and pay restitution inthe amountof § Probation Fee$ _________ and Court Costs §

19
.

2
2
)

=)
IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER of the Court, and the defendant is hereby advised that the Court may, at any time, revoke any conditions of this probation and/or discharge

the defendant from probation. The probationer shall be subject to arrest for violation of any condition of probation herein granted. If such probation is revoked, the Court

may order the execution of the sentence which was originally imp i or any portion thereof in the manner provided by law after dedycting therefrom the amount of time

the defendant has served on probation.

The defendant was represented by the Honorable : : iy Law (Employment) (Appointment).

So ordered this v5 ay of 2 19 20 Zz al “7 oes
Court Reporter: ~~ hietd 7 Judge, Fulton Superior Court

p
t

d
i
e
l

da
y

2 (
~

8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
=
Io) This is to certify that a true and correct copy of this Sentence of Probation has been delivered in person to the defendant and he/she instructed regarding the conditions

.£ as set forth above.

3
& This day of 19 —— A

Probation Officer

Copy received and instructions regarding conditions acknowledge.

[3 A
a

This day of 19 fn ® B

rosy 8 1 1 & page & 72 probationer

i)
&

hite - Clerk Goldenrod - Defendant - Pink - Probation Offic

|
+

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

THE STATE OF GEORGIA

THE STATE OF GEORGIA *

vs. *

BEN WRIGHT, JR. * INDICTMENT NO. Z-16064

NOTICE OF PROSECUTION'S INTENT TO

PRESENT EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS

Comes now, the State of Georgia, by and through the

District Attorney, and hereby provides notice of its intent to

present evidence of similar transactions on the trial of the

above-styled case in accordance with Georgia Uniform Court Rule:

No. 31.3, showing this Court the following: |

A copy of this Notice has been served upon defendant's

counsel at least ten days prior to trial in accordance with

rule 31.1, as reflected by the Certificate of Service attached

hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

FILED IN CFFICE Copies of the following documents pertaining to the

imilar Transaction(s) are attached: The Indictment/accu-~ : . UNOS 1990
770 Uo on. Plea, and Sentence.

FULTON COUNTY GEORGIA 300k 20 [1 ore 8 dh

AN) ~

— a ———— i. i. i lA. 3. Lo easel WE aWL Cafe - a RW

Pursuant to Rule 31.3(B) the similar transactions are as

follows:

Indictment: 2Z-18052
Offense: Armed Robbery
Date of Offense: January 1990
County of Offense: Fulton
Disposition: Pendine Jeers, Conic on

Indictment: A-40553
Offense: Voluntary Manslaughter, Armed Robbery (2 cts)
Date of Offense: May 13, 1978
County of Offense: Fulton
Disposition: Plea of guilty

Indictment: A-42821
Offense: Armed Robbery (2 cts)
Date of Offense: April 1, 1978
County of Offense: Fulton
Disposition: Plea of guilty

4, |

Should a conviction be obtained in the instant case, the

foregoing similar transaction(s) will be used in aggravation of

punishment. Further, the State's List of Witnesses is hereby

amended to include the names of all of the persons listed on

the attached documents.

00020 71 5206857 |

rte. ———— mia -- JE a Te Rh IE

WHEREFORE, the State requests leave of the Court to

present evidence of said similar transactions in the trial of

the above-styled case and that a hearing be held on this

request at the call of the case for trial or at such other time:

the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully itted,

Assista#ft District Attorney |
Atlanta Judicial Circuit |

Third Floor Courthouse |
136 Pryor Street, S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30335
(404) 730-4973

| Bok 29 71 10858

— - i a be ————— —— aot ee $n = + a hs | mn pn men. Son i TE CARAT EN, NTN SAE ANRC SARA WN NRA BART Ry

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the within

and foregoing Notice of Prosecution's Intent to Present

Evidence of Similar Transactions upon the Attorney of Record

for defendant by depositing a copy of same in the United States

mail in a properly addressed envelope with adequate postage

affixed thereon to insure prompt delivery to the following:

H. Pierre, Jr.
230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30303

This Sb, day of Marcie , 1990.

‘

\
\

\ Fey

PATSY Y.|
Assistant District Attorney
Atlanta Judicial Circuit

Third Floor Courthouse

136 Pryor Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30335
(404) 730-4973

{

802 71 210856

Sin- : hy p 3
pmn=-31 dA AAR § (i LA]

WITNESSES: Clerk's 8 na LEE HS OR I Rn Cer

Paul Ross

c/o Red Star Supermarket FULTON SUPERIOR COUR]

1025 iidgewood Ave

THE STATE

vs.

Dorothy Umberger
401 Leke Creek Dr.
Round Rock, Texas

James Cole
:

CoG COUNTS)
c/o Red Star Super-

market
rites

1025 Edgewood Ave Len Bl

(KL
7 day of vas Clie Bolt sis . 19.75.

Patricia Jackson iii oa... / J

43% Techaood Pod La rd, ZL otemen

Ful.

BPC:

Co. DA:

Grady Eskew ju ois: ; :
waises—copy—ol indictment, list of—witmesse?, Tull panel,

formal-aseaigament—end pleads. ..... he

Det. C. E. Simmons... / J

Det. J. A. Walker
Jr Fa ie aR

Det. MW. Harris 0.

S6
0

4
Dy

I
re

30
0k

29
7

IN THE SUPERIOR C. RT OF SAID COUNTY.

THE GRAND JURORS selected, chosen and sworn for the County of Fulton, to-wit:

; 1. HAINES H. HARGRETT, Foreman TET SRE Dred lhlC

2. JAMES F. HOLLINGSWORTH, Asst. Foreman 15. GLENN P. OAKS
3. RUBY T. HAMILTON, Secretary 16. THOMAS N, PULLEN
4. SARAH BUTLER, Asst. Secretary 17. DUDLEY B. SAMFORD
5. JERRY ADAMS 18. PAUL M, SCHUMACHER
6. LORETTA G. BARNES 19. CHARLES CARDEN SNOW
7. ANGIE BEASLEY 20. JOHN F. WALSH
8. MARIE BENSON 21. KATHARINE W. WHISNANT
9. GRADY L. BILLINGSLEA 22. JACKIE WILKIE
10. RALEIGH M. BIRD 23. FE. BRADY WILSON
11. AUSTIN VW. DANIEL 24. MARY DAVIS JENNINGS (lst Alt.)
12. DOROTHY M. HOWELL EEE sagan at 0 SEL SINE
13. BOBBY L. JONES

in tha name and hehalf of the citizens of Georaia. charae and accuse

BEN WRIGHT, JR.

with the offense of ARMED ROCLZERY, for thet seid sccused, in tic Councy
ol Fulton, Steis of Gecrise, on the 1s: dry of axxil, 1873

did unlawfully, with the intent to commit theft, take {rem the nercson ai

immediete presence ¢f Fzul Ross the following procertiy, to wit: cne

thousand end thirisen €-llers ($1,012.00) in cesh meney of the velue

one thousend end thirteen dollers ($1,(13.({) and the property of

Paul Ross, es beilee and cne man's welle:z, thirty dollers ($30.C0)

in cash money znd one .23 celiber Rossi pistol ell of the value of

one hundred and fifteen dollers ($112.C() and the grooserty of Pzul

Ross by intimidetion and by use of 2 nistol the same teing en

offensive weapon;- contrery tc the lews of said Stete, the good order,

neace and dignity thereoZ. "“TBOOK Bi LT

COUNT TWO - Ta
pope 20 (1 ash

And the Grand Jurors eforeseid, on thelr oeths eforessid, in the
name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, further charge and accuse

BEN WRIGHT, JR.

with the offense of ARMED ROBBERY, for that said accused, in the County
of Fulton, State of Georgia, on the lst day of April, 1978

did unlawfully, with the intent to commit theft, take from the person

end immediate presence of Dorothy Umberger the following property,

to wit: fifty-nine dollars ($£9.0C) in cesh money and one ladies

pocketbook all of the value of sixty-three dollers ($63.0C) and the

property of Dorothy Umberger by intimidation end by use of & pistol

the same being an offensive weapon;- contrary to the lzws of said

State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.

Specicl Presentment.

FELONY SENTENCE
charge Lt ened Ladlioies ETT)
Fulton Superior Court

_ rues tem 19577

No.22- HE 2/

THE STATE (Plea) (Vestdigt) of Guilty v=

WHEREUPON, It is ordered and adjudged by the Court that the Defendant,

etry

be taken from the Bar of this Court to the Jail of Fulton County, and be there safely kept until

a sufficient guard is sent for him from the Georgia Penitentiary, and be then delivered to, and be

by said guard taken to said Penitentiary, or to such other place as the Director of Corrections

may direct, where he, the said defendant be confined at labor for the full term of

ZA CF
(LacenZs £ ZO Z years to be computed according to law.

rn? & ; ZZ

Aral. A AOI

The costs of these proceedings are taxed against the defendant.

District Attorney

FILED IN THIS OFFICE. THIS

ng EN Ha ard dne JAN 1G io

Su il Foes,

Deputy Clerk, S.C., AJC

0x20 71 5-862

COURT REPORTER: EIT A een

bm-43.-ar REC v-; (O

WITNESSES:
bm-31-ar REC 6-7-78
bm-36 NA

Ronald W. Dukes
%Dixie Furniture

993 Marietta St NW

George A. Malcom
Same

Mary Dorsey Jenkins

Patricia Jackson

BPS:
Det. W. K. Jowers
Det. J. A. Walker, Jr.
Det. W. Harris

1eal7t

FULTON SUPERIOR COURT

THE STATE

vs.
DAVID BURNEY, JR.
BERNARD DEPREE

jo i a Nii a ye 8

Ce ok

waives-eopy-of-indictment, list of witnessesr+ull-panch-

formal-arcaigament,—and pleads... MN:r Go tf bate ER A a ye:

vain i A arse CR +) Atty.

\Werr—pmn MM “Clesk y JURY x i Jo : i,

waives ¢ i ents, lisf of witness ; :

fu Ara and pl 5 tr rom De parm or

Mo £ Geills i

foes A. 22068)

Defendant's Attorney

AP)
FR Asi pay 77 N 4 Al

iw Defendant 0

i "Defendant's

sll & non

i a pin Go A H(z) Ly

TA Nn Gl lye

Kk Eno WRieHY Ja
waives-copy -of-indictments, fist of witnesses,

tut -panel, formal arraignment and pleads.

SN Mat. Gerth

ara rt’ 2/8/>F ~ 7m 2,

Q Defendant's Attorney

Defeddant

STATE OF GEORGIA, COUNTY OF FULTON.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAID COUNTY.

| THE GRAND JURORS selected, chosen and sworn for the County of Fulton, to-wit:

13. JOE H. GERSON

< rel roreman 14
2. CAROL B. BROWN, Asst. Foreman : HUNT
z MARTHA NELL ALLVAN, Secretary i ba K RE

. RICHARD H, LOVELACE, Asst. Secty. 17. MARY A. MORRIS
2 Ana. Js AN 3 . E.C. SCHIFFGENS

. FRANK C, BRANDES 3: NERY Saw
§: MARY JO BROCK 29. SRA, SAVES an
25 ans BAS CHIVZRS 22. ERMA—CECIL—WARERS

. GUS L. CONNZLLY >
11. BLANCHE L. DOBBS er LD Wie
12. CHARLOTTE GAINZS ALT. W. DANIEL EBERSOLE

in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charge and accuse

DAVID BURNEY, JR., BERNARD DEPREE alias Bernard Dupree
WARREN McCLESKY, BEN WRIGHT, JR.

with the offense of MURDER, for that sald accused, in the County of
Fulton, State of Georgia, on the 13th day of May, 1978

did unlawfully and with malice aforethought, cause the death of

Frank Robert Schlatt, a human being, by shooting him with a pistol; -

contrary to the laws of sald State, the good order, peace and dignity

thereof. iw,

. : COUNT TWO

And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, in ‘the
name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, further charge and accuse

DAVID BURNEY, JR., BERNARD DEPREE alias Bernard Dupree
WARREN ’McCLESKY, BEN WRIGHT, JR.

with the offense of ARMED ROBBERY, for that said accused, in the County
of Fulton, State of Georgia, on the 13th day of May, 1978

did unlawfully, with the intent to commit theft, take from the person

and immediate presence of Ronald Warren Dukes the following property,

to wit: one thousand, five hundred dollars in money ($1,500.00) of

the value of $1,500.00 and the property of Ronald Warren Dukes, as

bailee and six dollars in money ($6.00) and one man's Timex wrist watch

all of the value of $56.00 and the property of Ronald Warren Dukes,

her intdmiAat+ian and her moa AP a Nnia+aTl and a Ahad ~ an lan mama Rad m~
poor 2D 71 sac SO4

COUNT THREE

And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, in the
name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, further charge and accuse

DAVID BURNEY, JR., BERNARD DEPREE alias Bernard Dupree
WARREN McCLESKY, BEN WRIGHT, JR.

with the offense of ARMED ROBBERY, for that sald accused, in the County
of rulton, State of Georgia, on the 13th day of May, 1978

did unlawfully, with the intent to commit theft, take from the person

and immediate presence of George A. Malcom, the following property,

to wit: one Garcia .380 Automatic pistol of the value in excess of

$100.00 and the property of George A. Malcom by intimidation and by use

of a pistol and a: shotgun, the same being offensive weapons; =- contrary

to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.

BCS JU PAE

LEWIS R. SLATON, District Attorney
Special Presentment.

0002371 p2:565

FELONY SENTENCE

Charge Senden, (ime) Ladle (227)

Fulton Superior Cop

dl 5 Term, 19.19
7

No. B05 52

THE STATE (Plea) (Verdict) of Guilty <a %

WHEREUPON, It is ordered and adjudged by the Court that the Defendant,

be taken from the Bar of this Court to the Jail of Fulton County, and be there safely kept until

a sufficient guard is sent for him from the Georgia Penitentiary, and be then delivered to, and be

by said guard taken to said Penitentiary, or to such other place as the Director of Corrections

may direct, where he, the said defendant be confined at labor for the full term of

Wri in ZL £20) years to be computed according to law.

Chad Lo tind CAA LNA LAT

1
. \ ¢

The costs of these proceedings are taxed against the defendant.

District Attorney

prise A Ll lra

FILED IN THIS OFFICE. THIS

THE 0 91229
a - Sk Jan 101979

Deputy Clerk, S.C., AJ.C. £ Be Bonk 5 1 orn ROD
a Pare NT)

COURT SFA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

STATE OF GEORGIA
VS.

BEN WRIGHT
CRIMINAL ACTION
FILE NO. Z-16064

N
r

r
r

TRANSCRIPT OF PLEA PROCEEDINGS, HEARD BEFORE
THE HONORABLE DON A. LANGHAM, COMMENCING ON THE 15TH DAY OF
JUNE, 1990, ATLANTA, GEORGIA.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:

ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: JOSEPH F. BURFORD
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: H. PIERRE, JR.

ATTORNEY AT LAW

EVELYN PARKER
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
FULTON SUPERIOR COURT

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
CERTIFICATE NO. B-772

BEN WRIGHT,

HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS

FOLLOWS:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BURFORD:

Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE COURT.

A. MY NAME THE BEN WRIGHT, JR.

Q. IS THAT YOUR TRUE AND GIVEN NAME?

A. YES, IT Is.

Q. ARE YOU THE BEN WRIGHT THAT IS LISTED IN BILL

OF INDICTMENT 2-160647

A. YES, I AM.

MR. BURFORD: MR. PIERRE, YOU WAIVE ANY DEFECT

IN THE INDICTMENT?

MR. PIERRE: YES, WE DO.

Q. YOU ARE CHARGED IN THIS BILL OF INDICTMENT WITH

THREE COUNTS OF ARMED ROBBERY AND ONE COUNT OF THEFT BY

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY. ARMED ROBBERY CARRIES A POTENTIAL

SENTENCE OF LIFE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

A. YES, I DO.

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THEFT BY RECEIVING

STOLEN PROPERTY ONLY CARRIES A POTENTIAL SENTENCE OF 1 TO 20

YEARS?

A. YES, I DO.

Q. IS THIS YOUR LAWYER STANDING BEHIND YOU, MR. H.

PIERRE?

A. YES, IT Is.

Q. HAS HE BEEN OVER THIS BILL OF INDICTMENT WITH

YOU THOROUGHLY AND COMPLETELY?

A. YES, HE HAS.

e. ARE YOU'RE SATISFIED WITH HIS REPRESENTATION OF

YOU?

A. YES, I AM.

Q. MR. WRIGHT, YOU HAVE CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHTS. AMONG THOSE RIGHTS ARE THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.

AT THAT TRIAL BY JURY, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT OR

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TESTIFY IN YOUR OWN BEHALF. THE CHOICE

TO TESTIFY OR TO REMAIN SILENT IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.

WHETHER YOU TESTIFY OR WHETHER YOU REMAIN SILENT, THE

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WOULD FOLLOW YOU THROUGHOUT THE

TRIAL.

YOU WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF

AN ATTORNEY. IF YOU COULD NOT AFFORD AN ATTORNEY, ONE WOULD

BE APPOINTED FOR YOU BY THE COURT, BOTH FOR THE TRIAL OR ANY

SUBSEQUENT PLEA THEREAFTER. I AM SORRY. APPEAL THEREAFTER.

YOU WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBPOENA AND BRING

INTO COURT WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IN YOUR BEHALF. YOU WOULD

HAVE THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE ALL WITNESSES CALLED AGAINST

YOU BY THE STATE. IF FOUND GUILTY BY TRIAL BY JURY, YOU

WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE GUILTY VERDICT. DO YOU

UNDERSTAND THESE RIGHTS?

A. I DO.

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR ATTORNEY HAS

ENTERED INTO A NEGOTIATION WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S

OFFICE, AND THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS BILL OF

INDICTMENT WILL BE 12 YEARS TO SERVE ON THE THREE COUNTS OF

ARMED ROBBERY, EACH TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE OTHER. THAT

THE COUNT OF THEFT BY RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY WILL BE DEAD

DOCKETED. THAT JUDGE LANGHAM DOES NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT

RECOMMENDATION AND COULD SENTENCE YOU UP TO THREE LIFE

SENTENCES PLUS 20 YEARS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. ANYBODY OFFERED YOU ANYTHING TO PLEAD GUILTY

HERE TODAY?

A. NO, THEY HAVEN'T.

0. ANYBODY THREATENED YOU TO PLEAD GUILTY HERE

TODAY?

A. NO.

Q. ARE YOU PRESENTLY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY

DRUGS OR ALCOHOL?

A. NO, SIR. I AM NOT.

Q. UNDER ANY MEDICATION?

A. NO. I AM NOT.

Q. TO THE CHARGE, THE THREE CHARGES OF ARMED

ROBBERY IN BILL OF INDICTMENT Z-16064, HOW DO YOU PLEAD?

A. I PLEAD GUILTY.

Q. IS THIS PLEA ENTERED FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY ON

YOUR PART?

A. YES, SIR.

MR. BURFORD: YOUR HONOR, PLEA HAS BEEN ENTERED

BY THE DEFENDANT AND SIGNED BY THE DEFENDANT AND THE

DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY.

THE COURT: HEAR THE FACTS.

MR. BURFORD: YES, YOUR HONOR. ON THE 4TH DAY

OF OCTOBER, 1989, THE C&S BANK AT 2358 CASCADE ROAD, THAT IS,

BEING IN FULTON COUNTY, A ARMED ROBBERY WAS ATTEMPTED AT THAT

BANK. THE MONEY WAS ACTUALLY REMOVED FROM THE BANK, BUT THE

PERPETRATORS OF THE ROBBERY DROPPED THE MONEY WHEN THE BOMB

WENT OFF, THE DYE BOMB.

ON THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1989, AT THE C&S

BANK AT 562 LEE STREET, A SECOND ARMED ROBBERY OCCURRED BY

THREE INDIVIDUALS. THOSE INDIVIDUALS FLED THE BANK UPON

ROBBING THE BANK, AND AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE BANK LEFT A PIECE

OF GOLD JEWELRY. THAT EVIDENCE LED TO THE CATCHING OF THREE

INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE ACTUALLY IN THE BANK. JIMMY LEE STARKS,

ERIC HOWARD, AND A THIRD PARTY WHO WAS A JUVENILE.

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND STATEMENTS MADE BY

ALL PARTIES SHOWED THAT MR. BEN WRIGHT WAS THE INSTIGATOR AND

THE PLANNER OF THOSE TWO ROBBERIES. HE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY

CHARGED AND ARRESTED AND BROUGHT HERE TODAY.

INASMUCH AS HE WAS PHYSICALLY NOT IN THE BANK

AT THE TIME. THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S

OFFICE ON THIS NEGOTIATED PLEA IS 12 YEARS TO SERVE ON ALL

THREE COUNTS OF THE ARMED ROBBERY. THAT THE DEAD DOCKET ON

THE THEFT BY RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY. THAT THE THREE

COUNTS RUN CONCURRENT.

THE COURT: MR. PIERRE.

MR. PIERRE: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE ENTERING THIS

PLEA FOR WANT OF A BETTER DESIGNATION OF IT. WE ASK THAT IT

BE VIEWED AS A SPECIAL PLEA. THAT IS, THE COURT IS AWARE

APPROXIMATELY THREE WEEKS AGO MR. WRIGHT WAS FOUND GUILTY BY

A JURY OF A SEPARATE ARMED ROBBERY, AND THIS COURT SENTENCED

HIM TO LIFE IN PRISON. I HAD SPOKEN WITH MR. SMEGAL, WHO

INITIALLY WAS HANDLING THIS CASE, AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE

WILL SUPPORT THE FACT THAT -- RATHER, THE RECORD WILL SUPPORT

THE FACT THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT WAS AGAINST MR. WRIGHT

ARE THE STATEMENTS OR A STATEMENT BY ONE OF THE

CO-DEFENDANTS. ABSENT THAT, HE WAS NEVER THERE, AND OUR

POSITION IS IF THIS CASE WERE TO GO TO TRIAL, I THINK HE

WOULD PREVAIL.

AS HIS ATTORNEY, I HAVE ADVISED HIM ON THE

RAMIFICATIONS OF RISK OF RUNNING, THAT IT WOULD BE RUNNING

AND HAVING AN ADDITIONAL TRIAL. THAT IS, IF HE WERE FOUND

GUILTY, HE WOULD BE SUBJECTING HIMSELF TO THREE ADDITIONAL

LIFE TERMS.

WE THINK AND MR. RIGHT THINKS THAT IT IS IN HIS

BEST INTEREST TO ENTER THIS SPECIAL PLEA. HE WOULD ASK THAT

THE COURT, IF IT ACCEPTS THE PLEA, WOULD HAVE THIS SENTENCE

TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE LIFE SENTENCE THAT HE WAS ALREADY

GIVEN.

THE COURT: MR. WRIGHT, ANYTHING YOU WANT TO

SAY?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR. I APPRECIATE IT IF

YOU WOULD ACCEPT MY PLEA AND --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, SIR. I WILL ACCEPT THE

PLEA. I BELIEVE IT'S FREELY, VOLUNTARILY, AND INTELLIGENTLY

MADE. I BELIEVE THERE IS A SUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASIS FOR IT.

I WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA RECOMMENDATION. HAVE YOU BEEN IN JAIL

SINCE OCTOBER THE -- HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN JAIL?

THE DEFENDANT: SINCE JANUARY 9TH.

THE COURT: I WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA

RECOMMENDATION ON EACH OF THE THREE COUNTS OF ARMED ROBBERY.

I WILL SENTENCE MR. WRIGHT TO 12 YEARS TO SERVE TO BE

CALCULATED FROM JANUARY 9, 1990. THIS SENTENCE TO RUN

CONCURRENT WITH THE ARMED ROBBERY SENTENCE THAT I IMPOSED ON

MR. WRIGHT WITHIN THE LAST FEW WEEKS, AND COUNT FOUR OF THIS

INDICTMENT IS ON THE DEAD DOCKET.

ee VRRNAAM TE CR Fv TI OF ERR AAT 2 ENR A a TY

CERTIFICATE

STATE OF GBORGIKS *. @sugiiusif.

COUNTY OF FULTON:

I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES
REPRESENT A TRUE, COMPLETE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT
FROM THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE AFORESAID.

THIS CERTIFICATION IS EXPRESSLY WITHDRAWN AND
DENIED UPON DISASSEMBLY OR PHOTOCOPYING OF THE FOREGOING
TRANSCRIPT, OR ANY PART THEREOF, INCLUDING EXHIBITS, UNLESS
SAID DISASSEMBLY OR PHOTOCOPYING IS DONE BY THE UNDERSIGNED
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER AND ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL IS
ATTACHED THERETO. -

THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 1991.

EVELYN RARKER, CCR-B-772
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
ATLANTA JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

. STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNTY OF FULTON

1 Valerie Wright, Deputy Clerk of

the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, do hereby certify

that the within and foregoing is a true and correct copy of . Motion For Discovery and Inspection (Filed February 23, 1990)
: Indictment :

1
2

3. Calendar Notice

4, Final Disposition
5
6

. Notice Of Prosecution's (Filed June 5, 1990)

. Transcript Of Plea

- all of which appears of file and record in this Office.

Given under my hand and seal of Office.

This the 26th ‘day of April 1991

lira UA °F ik
~ DEPUTY CLERK, Li COURT
FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA

|
eo)

’

|
i}
4 IRs

e
n

—
—
—
—
—
—

[STATE OF GEORGIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

INDICTMENT NO. A-99174

CHARGE: V.G.C.S.A.
BEN WRIGHT

Proceedings before HONORABLE LUTHER ALVERSON

on August 5, 1988 at Atlanta, Georgia.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:

FOR THE STATE: DAVID WRIGHT,
Assistant District Attorney

FOR THE DEFENDANT: CHARLES BOYLE,
Attorney at law

- v
© wnat

Mary R. McLelland cep131989
Official Court Reporter, A-257
207 Fulton County Courthouse
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 {ERY SU

ULTON COUNTY ©-

)

DAVIS, MR.

MR. WRIGHT:

STATE VERSUS KEVIN IL.. THOMAS.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

BEN WRIGHT, GREGORY BRACEY, SAMUEL

HOWARD, NUMBER THIRTY-TWO.

THE

MR.

TEE

MR.

THE

MR.

THE

MR.

THE

MR.

SAMUEL GRAY.

HONOR.

THE

MR.

THE

MR.

FORTY-EIGHT.

FORTY-NINE.

THE

MR.

THE

COURT:

WRIGHT:

CCURT:

WRIGHT:

COURT:

WRIGHT:

COURT.

WRIGHT:

COURT:

WRIGHT:

COURT:

WRIGHT:

COURT:

WRIGHT:

COURT:

WRIGHT:

COURT:

THAT'S NUMBER FOUR.

GEORGE TERRELL.

THAT'S NUMBER FIVE.

ROBERT LEE HIGH, NUMBER THIRTY-EIGHT.

NUMBER SIX.

NUMBER FORTY, CHAUNCEY MCCOY.

NUMBER SEVEN.

NUMBER FORTY-TWO, WILLIE TUCKER.

THAT'S NUMBER EIGHT.

AND THE NEXT ONE IS NUMBER FORTY-FIVE,

THAT'S NUMBER NINE.

MS. TARVER, NUMBER FORTY-SIX, YOUR

THAT'S NUMBER TEN.

AND RICO ANTONIO BYNUM, NUMBER

NUMBER ELEVEN.

JESSIE JAMES WILLIAMS, NUMBER

NUMBER TWELVE.

MR. WRIGHT: JEFFREY KIRKLAND, NUMBER FIFTY-ONE AND

FIFTY TRO.

THE COURT: NUMBER THIRTEEN AND FOURTEEN.
(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: NUMBER FIFTY-SEVEN, FLOYD ZILLAMON.

THE COURT: NUMBER FIFTEEN.

MR. WRIGHT:. THAT'S IT, YOUR HONOR, EXCEPT MR.

THOMAS, WE'RE GOING FIRST.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

THE COURT: ARE YOU THE KEVIN I... THOMAS THAT'S NAMED

IN INDICTMENT 98483 CHARGING YOU WITH THE OFFENSE OF MURDER?

THE DEFENDANT: YES.

THE COURT: AND ARE YOU THE BEN WRIGHT THAT'S NAMED

IN INDICTMENT 99174 CHARGING YOU WITH VIOLATION GEORGIA

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: YOU'RE MR. WRIGHT, AREN'T YOU?

THE DEFENDANT: I CAN'T HEAR TOO GOOD, YOUR HONOR.

I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.

THE COURT: ARE YOU THE BEN WRIGHT THAT'S NAMED IN

INDICTMENT 99174 CHARGING YOU WITH VIOLATION GEORGIA CONTROLLED

SUBSTANCES ACT? ARE YOU THAT PERSON?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

P
e

ARE YOU THE GREGORY LAMAR BRACEY NAMED IN INDICTMENT

99613 CHARGING YOU WITH VIOLATION GEORGIA CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

ACT?

THE DEPENDANT: VES.

THE COURT: : AND ARE YOU THE SAMUEL DAVIS THAT'S

NAMED IN INDICTMENT 99723 CHARGING YOU WITH VIOLATION GEORGIA

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT?

THE DEPENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: AND ARE YOU THE DEVHRON HOWARD WHO IS

CHARGED IN INDICTMENT 99736 WITH VIOLATION GEORGIA CONTROLLED

SUBSTANCES ACT?

THE DEPENDANT: VES, SIR.

THE COURT: ARE YOU THF GEORGE TERRELL, SR. NAMED IN

INDICTMENT 95309 WHO IS CHARGED WITH FORGERY IN THE FIRST

DEGREE IN TWO COUNTS?

THE DEPENDANT: VES, SIR.

THE COURT: AND ARE YOU THE ROBERT LEE HIGH THAT'S

CHARGED IN INDICTMENT NUMBER 98353 WITH VIOLATION GEORGIA

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: AND ARE YOU THE CHAUNCEY MCCOY THAT'S

NAMED IN INDICTMENT 97649 CHARGING YOU WITH THEFT BY TAKING AND

ENTERING AN AUTOMOBILE?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: AND ARE YOU THE WILLIE CHRISTOPHER

TUCKER WHO IS CHARGED IN INDICTMENT 99407 WITH VIOLATION
GEORGIA CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT?

THE DEFENDANT: VES, SIR.

THE COURT: ARE YOU THE SAMUEL GRAY THAT'S CHARGED

IN INDICTMENT 98446 WITH THE OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT?

THE DEFENDANT: YES.

THE COURT: AND ARE YOU THE ELLA TARVER WHO IS

CHARGED IN INDICTMENT NUMBER 99967 WITH THE OFFENSE OF

VIOLATION GEORGIA CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: ARE YOU THE RICO ANTONIO BYNUM CHARGED

WITH BURGLARY IN INDICTMENT 99713?

THE DEFENDANT: VES.

THE COURT: AND ARE YOU THE JESSIE JAMES WILLIAMS

THAT'S CHARGED IN INDICTMENT 99881 WITH THE OFFENSE OF

VIOLATION GEORGIA CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT?

THE DEFENDANT: VES.

THE COURT: AND ARE YOU THE JEFFREY RENOLDA XIRKLAND

CHARGED WITH THE OFFENSE OF BURGLARY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT IN

INDICTMENT 994737?

THE DEFENDANT: VES, SIR.

THE COURT: I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TWO CHARGES.

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, THE --

THE COURT: YOU'RE ALSO CHARGED IN INDICTMENT 99474

WITH AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. ARE YOU THAT PERSON?

1 THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

Io
THE COURT: AND ARE YOU THE FLOYD ZILLAMON NAMED IN

3 INDICTMENT Z-00212 CHARGING YOU WITH THE OFFENSE OF CRIMINAL

ATTEMPT TO COMMIT ROBBERY? =

3 THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR,

S THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF COUNSEL FOR THE

7 DEFENDANTS WISH THE COURT TO READ THE CHARGES AGAINST THEIR

8 PARTICULAR DEFENDANTS AT THIS TIME?

i
MR. BARTON: WAIVE FORMAL READING, YOUR HONOR.

MS. BORSUK: WAIVE FORMAL READING.

MR. BOYLE: I WILL WAIVE, YOUR HONOR.

2 MR. FRANKLIN: WAIVE FORMAL READING.

3 MR. THOMAS: WE'LL WAIVE AS 70 MR. TERRELL.

4 THE COURT: ALL THE LAWYERS HAVE WAIVED FORMAL

3 READING. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT.

3 HAVE EACH OF YOU EXPLAINED TO YOUR CLIENTS THE

? MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SENTENCE THAT COULD BE IMPOSED IN EACH OF

THEIR CASES? u
o

3 MR. BARTON: YES, YOUR HONOR.

J MS. BORSUK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

i MR. THOMAS: ON BEHALF OF MR. TERRELL I HAVE, YOUR

2 HONOR.

3 MR. BOYLE: YES, YOUR HONOR.

i MR. FRANKLIN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

p THE COURT: LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT ALL LAWYERS

HAVE SO ADVISED THEIR CLIENTS.

I'D

AN OPPORTUNITY

YOUR LAWYER?

MR.

LIKE TO KNOW

TO DISCUSS YOUR CASE FULLY AND COMPLETELY WITE

THOMAS?

DEFENDANT:

COURT:

DEFENDANT :

COURT:

DEFENDANT:

COURT:

DEFENDANT:

COURT:

DEFENDANT:

COURT:

DEFENDANT:

COURT:

DEFENDANT:

COURT:

DEFENDANT:

COURT:

DEFENDANT:

COURT:

DEFENDANT :

COURT:

MR.

MP.

MR.

MS.

YES, SIR.

WRIGHT?

YES, SIR.

BRACEY?

(NODDED AFFIRMATIVELY).

DAVIS?

Yes, SIR.

HOWARD?

YES, SIR.

TERRELL?

MCCOY?

YES, SIR.

TUCKER?

YES.

GRAY?

YES, I HAVE.

TARVER?

IF EACH OF YOU DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD

.22

THE

DEFENDANTS THAT

COURT THAT MAY

YOU

LIKE TO ADVISE EACH OF YOU

TO SAY ANYTHIRG NM TEIS

TO INCRIMINATE YOU IN ANY WAY,

RIGHT TO PLEAD NOT GUILTY,

RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY.

RIGHT TO BE FACED BY YOUR ACCUSERS.

RIGHT TO PLEAD GUILTY.

DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

COURT: MR. BYNUM?

DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

COURT: MR. WILLIAMS?

DEFENDANT: YES.

COURT: MR. KIRKLAND?

DEFENDANT: = YES, SIR.

COURT: MR. ZILLAMON?

DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

COURT: I'D

YOU ARF NOT REZOUIRED

TEND

EAVE THE

HAVE THE

HAVE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL.

HAVE THE

HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND HAVE

THESE WITNESSES APPEAR IN COURT AND EXAMINED IN YOUR BEHALF AND

YOU ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE ANY WITNESSES THAT ARE

PRESENTED BY THE STATE.

BY THE COURT:

0. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. THOMAS?

A. SIXTH GRADE.

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

+23

Q. ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

A. NO, SIR, NEVER USE IT, NO, SIR.

0. WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

A. YES, -S1IR.

0. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO ENTFR A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO, SIF.

THE COURT: I'D L1IXE TO ADVISE YOU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, MR. THOMAS HAS ENTERED A

PLEA TO VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER ON THIS INDICTMENT.

THE COURT: iI WILL ACCEPT TEE PLEA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE THE FACTS TO THE COURT MR, WRIGHT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, IF THIS CASE HAD GONE TO

TRIAL WE WOULD EXPECT THE FACTS TO SHOW THAT ON THE DATE LISTED

IN THE INDICTMENT THE DEFENDANT ALONG WITH TWO OTHER PERSONS

WERE IN AN AUTOMOBILE. ONE OF THOSE PERSONS IN THE AUTOMOBILE

WAS ALSO INDICTED, THAT BEING MR. ROBERT SPAN. AS I UNDERSTAND

THE FACTS, MR. SPAN HAD ON A PREVIOUS OCCASION BOUGHT SOME,

+24

WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS COCAINE FROM THE VICTIM IN THE CASE. IT

TURNED OUT NOT TO BE COCAINE. AS A RESULT MR. SPAN GOT INTO A

PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION WITH THE VICTIM IN THE CASE. AFTER

COMPLETING THAT PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION THE DEFENDANT HERE, AS I

UNDERSTAND IT, GOT OUT OF THE CAR, TOOK A SHOTGUN AND SHOT AND

KILLED THE VICTIM IN THE CASE.

THOSE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES

AS I UNDERSTAND THEM.

THE COURT: ARE THE FACTS STATED BY THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY CORRECT, MR. THOMAS?

THE DEFENDANT: YES.

THE: COURT: HAS THE STATE ENTERED INTO A PRE-PLEA

AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER?

MR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: STATE THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT.

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, THE STATE'S RECOMMENDATION

ON THIS PLEA TO VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER WOULD BE A SENTENCE OF

TWENTY YEARS TO SERVE IN THE PENITENTIARY.

THE COURT: I WILL FOLLOW YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND

LET MR. THOMAS SERVE A SENTENCE OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE

PENITENTIARY.

MR. THOMAS, I'D LIRE TO ADVISE YOU IF YOU THINK TEIS

SENTENCE IS EXCESSIVE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL ON

THE GROUNDS OF EXCESSIVENESS IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THIS

COURT. SUCH AN APPEAL HAS TO BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM

[W
1)

TODAY AND IF YOU NEED A LAWYER TO REPRESENT YOU IN SUCH AN

APPEAL THE COURT WILL APPOINT APPEAL COUNSEL FOR YOU AT NO COST

TO YOU.

MR. BARTON: I WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT,

By THE COURT:

0. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. WRIGHT?

A. TWELFTH GRADE.

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

A YES, SIR

x. ARE YOU UNDER TEE INFLUENCE OF ANY LRUGS Ux ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

A. NO, SIR.

Q- WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

A. YES, SIR,

Q. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO, SIR.

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO ADVISE YOU TEAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON TEE COURT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, MR. WRIGHT HAS SIGNED A

126

1 CUILTY PLEA TO THIS CHARGE AND HE WANTS TO MAKE A STATEMENT AS

IT RELATES TO THE CO-DEFENDANT INVOLVED IN THE CASE. [<

3 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, MR. WRIGHT, YOU MAY DO SO.

FS BEN WRIGHT,

5 SAVING 3EEN FIRST DULY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS

6 FOLLOWS:

{ DIRECT EXAMINATION

3 BY MR. WRIGHT:

9 0. MR. WRIGHT, WHO DID THE MARIJUANA THAT WAS FOUND IN

8) 1H1IS CASE BELONG TO?

1) A. MARIJUANA FOUND IN THIS CASE WAS LAYING ON THE BACK

2 OF THE VEHICLE, BELONGS TO ME.

3 0. YOUR SON, MR. STANLEY WRIGHT, YOUR SON, WAS ALSO

4d CHARGED IN THIS BILL OF INDICTMENT. DID ANY OF THOSE DRUGS

5 THAT WERE CONFISCATED BELONG TO STANLEY WRIGHT?

5 A. NO, SIR.

7 MR. WRIGHT: THANK YOU.

3 THAT'S ALL I HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

$3 THE COURT: - ALL RIGHT.

0 I WOULD ASSUME YOU WISH TO PUT MR. STANLEY WRIGHT'S

i CASE ON THE DEAD DOCKET?

2 MR. WRIGHT: YES, SIR, YOUR HONOR, THE PACTS IN THIS

2 CASE ARE THEY EXECUTED A SEARCH WARRANT ON MR. WRIGHT'S HOUSE

4 AND THEY FOUND SEVERAL NICKEL BAGS OF MARIJUANA INSIDE THE

RESIDENCE AS A RESULT OF SOME INFORMATION THEY HAD RECEIVED ul

CONCERNING THIS APARTMENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

HAS THE STATE ENTERED INTO A PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT WITH

THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER?

MR. WRIGHT: YES WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: STATE THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT.

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, THE STATE'S RECOMMENDATION

IS A TWO YEAR PROBATED SENTENCE AND A FINE ON MR. WRIGHT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR, WRIGHT, I WILL LET YOU SERVE A SENTENCE OF TWO

YEARS AND I WILL PROBATE THAT SENTENCE ON CONDITION THAT ¥0OU

PAY A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ON THE

FURTHER CONDITION THAT YOU NOT VIOLATE TEE LAW, THAT YOU FOLLOW

THE ORDERS AND THE DIRECTIVES OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND

THE COURT.

MR. BOYLE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR,

THE COURT: “ALL RIGHT,

BY THE COURT:

Q. HOW FAR DiD YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. BRACEY?

A TWELFTH.

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

A YES.

Q. ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

A. NO.

Q. WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

A. OH, GUILTY,

Q. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED 70U ANY REWARD

OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO.

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO ADVISE YOU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, THE PLEA HAS BEEN SIGNED.

THE COURT: IT WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE THE FACTS TO THE COURT, MR. WRIGHT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, IF THIS CASE HAD GONE TO

TRIAL WE WOULD EXPECT THE FACTS TO SHOW THAT ON THE DATE LISTED

IN THE BILL OF INDICTMENT THE DEFENDANT WAS OBSERVED DRIVING AN

AUTOMOBILE. IT HAD A TAG THAT WAS UNREADABLE, ACCORDING TO THE

OFFICER'S REPORT. AS A RESULT HE HAD THE DEFENDANT COME FROM

THE LOCATION WHERE HE HAD LEFT THE AUTOMOBILE, FOUND OUT THE

DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR ANY IDENTIFICATION

ON HIM AT THAT TIME. AS A RESULT HE WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST ON

TRAFFIC CHARGES. PURSUANT TO A SEARCH OF HIS PERSON ON THE

ARREST A SMALL AMOUNT OF COCAINE WAS FOUND ON HIM. HE WAS

CHARGED WITH SIMPLE POSSESSION OF COCAINE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

ARE THE FACTS STATED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

CORRECT, MR. BRACEY?

THE DEFENDANT: YES.

THE COURT: HAS THE STATE ENTERED INTO A PRE-PLEA

AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER?

MR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WILL YOU STATE THE TERMS OF THAT

AGREEMENT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, THE STATE'S RECOMMENDING A

NO YEAR PROBATED SENTENCE AND A FINE.

THE COURT: WELL, MR. BRACEY, I WILL LET YOU SERVE A

SENTENCE OF TWO YEARS AND I WILL PROBATE THAT SENTENCE ON

CONDITION THAT YOU PAY A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF SIX HUNDRED

DOLLARS, ON THE FURTHER CONDITION THAT YOU NOT VIOLATE THE LAW,

THAT YOU FOLLOW THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES OF THE PROBATION

DEPARTMENT AND THE COURT.

MR. FRANKLIN: THANK YOU.

BY THE COURT:

QQ: HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. DAVIS?

A. TWELFTH.

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

A. YES.

Q. ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

U
h

A. NO.

Q. WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

A. YES.

Q. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO.

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO ADVISE YOU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, MR. DAVIS HAS TENDERED A

GUILTY PLEA TO THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF SIMPLE POSSESSION

OF COCAINE.

THE COURT: 1 WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE THE FACTS TO THE COURT, MR. WRIGHT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, IF THIS CASE HAD GONE TO

TRIAL WE WOULD EXPECT THE FACTS TO BE THAT ON THE DATE LISTED

IN THE BILL OF INDICTMENT THE DEFENDANT WAS OBSERVED STANDING

ON THE STREET CORNER. THE OFFICERS, POLICE OFFICERS CAME BY

AND UPON SEEING THE POLICE OFFICERS THE DEFENDANT WALKED AWAY.

THE OFFICERS INDICATE IN THEIR REPORT THAT THEY SAW THE

DEFENDANT AS HE WAS WALKING AWAY DROP AN ITEM TO THE GROUND.

THE OFFICERS INDICATE THAT AFTER STOPPING THE DEFENDANT THEY

WENT BACK AND FOUND WHAT HE HAD DROPPED AND DISCOVERED THAT IT

CONTAINED WHAT THEY BELIEVED TO BE WERE, EXCUSE ME, CONTAINED

WHAT THEY BELIEVED TO BE WAS COCAINE. THEY INDICATE THAT IT

WAS PACKAGED INDIVIDUALLY, SEVERAL PACKS, AND THEY CHARGED HIM

WITH POSSESSION OF COCAINE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE.

THOSE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

OF THE CASE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ARE THE FACTS AS STATED BY THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY CORRECT, MR. DAVIS?

THE DEFENDANT: YES.

THE COURT: HAS THE STATE ENTERED INTO A PRE-PLEA

AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER?

MR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR,

THE COURT: WILL YOU STATE THE TERMS OF THAT

AGREEMENT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, MY NEGOTIATIONS WITH MR.

FRANKLIN HAVE INCLUDED REDUCING THIS TO SIMPLE POSSESSION OF

COCAINE AND RECOMMENDING THREE YEARS PROBATION ON CONDITION

THAT HE COMPLETE NINETY-SIX HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PAY

A PINE TO BE IMPOSED BY THE COURT,

THE COURT: WELL, MR. DAVIS, I WILL LET YOU SERVE A

SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS AND I WILL PROBATE THAT SENTENCE ON

CONDITION THAT YOU PAY A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF SIX HUNDRED

DOLLARS WHICH WILL COVER SOME OF THE COST OF YOUR SUPERVISION

WHILE ON PROBATION AND ON THE FURTHER CONDITION THAT YOU RENDER

2
J

COMMUNITY SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF NINETY-SIX HOURS AND ON THE

FURTHER CONDITION THAT YOU FOLLOW THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES OF

THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND ALSO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES

SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES =--

MR. FRANKLIN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: -- AND THAT YOU NOT VIOLATE THE LAW.

BY THE COURT:

Q. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. HOWARD?

A. SEVENTH GRADE.

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

A. SAY NOW?

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

A YES, S1R.

Q. ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

A. NO, SIR.

Q. WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO, SIR.

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO ADVISE YOU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, PLEA HAS BEEN SIGNED.

THE COURT: I WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE THE FACTS TO THE COURT, MR. WRIGHT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, IF THIS CASE HAD GONE TO

TRIAL WE WOULD EXPECT THE FACTS TO SHOW THAT ON THE DATE LISTED

IN THE INDICTMENT THE DEFENDANT WAS OPERATING A MOTORCYCLE.

OFFICERS STOPPED HIM FOR PURPOSES OF TRAFFIC CHARGES FOR

PURPOSES OF CHECKING HIS IDENTIFICATION AND LICENSE. HE HAD

NEITHER AND AS A RESULT HE WAS ARRESTED ON THE TRAFFIC CHARGES

AND PURSUANT TO THE ARREST THEY SEARCHED HIM AND FOUND A SMALL

AMOUNT OF COCAINE ON HIS PERSON.

THE COURT: ARE THE FACTS STATED BY THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY CORRECT, MR. HOWARD?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: HAS THE STATE ENTERED INTO A PRE-PLEA

AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER?

MR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: STATE THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT.

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, THE STATE'S RECOMMENDATION

IS A TWO YEAR PROBATED SENTENCE ON THE CONDITION THAT HE

COMPLETE FORTY-EIGHT HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PAY A FINE

TO BE IMPOSED BY THE COURT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

i MR. HOWARD, I WILL LET YOU SERVE A SENTENCE OF TWO

L YEARS AND I WILL PROBATE THAT SENTENCE ON CONDITION THAT YOU

3 PAY A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS, ON THE FURTHER

4 CONDITION THAT YOU CONTRIBUTE FORTY-EIGHT HOURS OF COMMUNITY

3 SERVICE AND THAT YOU FOLLOW THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES OF THE

COURT, THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND THE SUPERVISORS OF THE (9
J]

COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM AND THAT YOU NOT VIOLATE THE LAW IN

ANY DEGREE. 68
]

2 THE DEFENDANT: THANK YOU,

3 MS. BORSUK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

2 BY THE COURT:

3 Q. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. TERRELL?

4 A. TWELFTH.

5 Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

6 A YES.

£5 ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME? co

3 A. NO.

0 Q. WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

1 WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

2 A. YES.

3 Q- HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

4 OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

5 COURT?

A. NO.

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO ADVISE YOU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: PLEA HAS BEEN SIGNED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IT WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE THE FACTS TO THE COURT, MR. WRIGHT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR,, IF THIS CASE HAD GONE T

TRIAL WE WOULD EXPECT THE FACTS TO SHOW THAT ON THE, OR BETWEEN

HE DATES LISTED IN THE BILL OF INDICTMENT THE DEFENDANT HAL

ORDERED SOME MERCHANDISE, BEING OFFICE FURNITURE TYPE

MERCHANDISE, FROM A COMPANY I BELIEVE IN NEW JERSEY. HE

ORDERED THE MERCHANDISE C.0.D. AND WHEN THE U.P.S. DEALER WOULD

DROP OFF THE FURNITURE IN THESE TWO PARTICULAR CASES HE GAVE

THEM FORGED CHECKS, TWO OF THEM. AS A RESULT THE COMPANY LOST

THE MONIES AS IT RELATED TO THE DELIVERY OF THE FURNITURE

BECAUSE THE CHECKS DID NOT GO THROUGH.

THOSE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

OF THE TWO FORGERY CASES. HE GAVE THE FORGED CHECKS TO A

U.P.S. DEALER FOR FURNITURE THAT HE RECEIVED.

THE COURT: ARE THE FACTS STATED BY THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY CORRECT, MR. TERRELL?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

HAVE YOU ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MR. THOMAS

AS COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT?

MR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: STATE THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT.

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS

CASE IS GONNA BE A SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS TO SERVE EIGHT

MONTHS IN CONFINEMENT ON CONDITION THAT HE PAY RESTITUTICN TO

THE VICTIM IN THE AMOUNT OF FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND WE'D ASK

THAT BOTH COUNTS BE ALLOWED TO RUN CONCURRENTLY. HE ALSO HAS A

PENDING CASE, OR A PRIOR CASE AND IN THAT CASE HE'S ON

PROBATION. WE'RE GOING TO ASK THE COURT TO REVOKE. I BLLIFVE

HE HAS ABOUT SEVEN MONTHS LEFT ON THAT CASE.

THE COURT: DOES HE WAIVE NOTICE?

MR. THOMAS: YES, YOUR HONOR, WE DO WAIVE NOTICE AND

WE'RE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, MR. THOMAS, IF HE WAIVES

NOTICE, AND ON THIS CHARGE I WILL LET HIM SERVE THREE YEARS ON

COUNT NUMBER ONE, PERMIT HIM TO BE RELEASED AFTER HE SERVES

EIGHT MONTHS OF THAT SENTENCE AND 1 WILL LET HIM SERVE THE

BALANCE ON PROBATION ON CONDITION THAT HE PAY A FINE IN THE

AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ON THE FURTHER CONDITION

THAT HE MAKE RESTITUTION TO THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE IN THE

AMOUNT OF FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND ON COUNT NUMBER TWO A

SENTENCE OF THREE TO SERVE ONE, THAT IS, TO SERVE EIGHT MONTHS

AND THE BALANCE ON PROBATION AND LET IT RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE

[1
8

SENTENCE IMPOSED IN COUNT NUMBER ONE. AND I, OF COURSE, WILL

LET, SIGN AN ORDER REVOKING EIGHT MONTHS OR THE BALANCE OF HIS

SENTENCE, THAT IS, REVOKE THAT BALANCE ON THE OTHER SENTENCE

AND I WILL LET IT RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCES IMPOSED IN

THIS CASE.

MR. THOMAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

BY THE COURT:

0. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. HIGH?

A. TWELFTH.

0. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

A ZEST SIR

a, ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

A. NO, SIR.

Q. WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

A. ves, IT WILL,

0. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TC ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO, SIR,

THE COURT: I'D LIKF TO ADVISE YOU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: PLEA HAS BEEN SIGNED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE THE FACTS TO THE COURT, MR. WRIGHT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, IF THIS CASE HAD GONE TO

TRIAL WE WOULD EXPECT THE FACTS TO BE THAT ON THE DATE LISTED

IN THE BILL OF INDICTMENT OFFICERS EXECUTED A SEARCH WARRANT AT

THE DEFENDANT'S RESIDENCE. AS A RESULT THEY FOUND A NUMBER OF

PEOPLE THAT WERE ALSO ARRESTED AS WELL AS SEVERAL ITEMS OF

DRUGS AND DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. HE WAS CHARGED SPECIFICALLY WITH

POSSESSING A SMALL AMOUNT OF COCAINE AND A SMALLER AMOUNT OF

MARIJUANA.

THE COURT: ARE THE FACTS STATED BY THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY CORRECT, MR. HIGH?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: HAS THE STATE ENTERED INTO A PRE-PLEA

AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER?

MR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: STATE THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT.

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, THE STATE'S RECOMMENDATION

IS A SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS TO SERVE SEVEN MONTHS IN

CONFINEMENT ON BOTH THESE CHARGES, ON THE FELONY, AND TWELVE

MONTHS TO SERVE SEVEN MONTHS ON THE MISDEMEANOR CONCURRENTLY.

MR. HIGH IS CURRENTLY ON PROBATION AND I UNDERSTAND HE WANTS TO

HAVE SEVEN MONTHS OF THAT CURRENT PROBATION REVOKED

CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS.

THE COURT: DOES HE WAIVE NOTICE?

MS. BORSUK: YES, YOUR HONOR,

THE COURT: SINCE HE WAIVES NOTICE, ON COUNT ONE,

MR. HIGH, I WILL LET YOU SERVE A SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS AND I

WILL PERMIT YOU TO BE RELEASED AFTER YOU SERVE SEVEN MONTHS AND

I WILL LET YOU SERVE THE BALANCE ON PROBATION ON CONDITION THAT

70U PAY A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ON THE

FURTHER CONDITION THAT YOU NOT VIOLATE THE LAW, THAT YOU FOLLOW

THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND OF

THE COURT.

ON. COUNT RJRUMBPER TWO, TWELVE MONTHS T4 GEZRVI SEVEN

MONTHS, PERMIT YOU TO BE RELEASED AFTER YOU SERVE SEIVIN MONTHS

OF THAT SENTENCE AND I WILL LET IT RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE

SENTENCE IMPOSED IN COUNT NUMBER ONE, AND WITH REFERENCE 7T0 THE

REVOCATION, SEVEN MONTHS, I WILL LET THAT RUN CONCURRENT AND

LET THE SENTENCES IN BOTH COUNTS IN THIS CASE RUN CONCURRENT

#ITH THE REVOCATED SENTENCE, ~~

MS. BORSUK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: -- THAT YOU NOT VIOLATE THE LAW, THAT

YOU FOLLOW THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES OF THE PROBATICN

DEPARTMENT AND THE COURT.

BY THE COURT:

Q. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. MCCOY?

A. TWELFTH GRADE, SIR.

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

Q. ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

A. NO, SIR.

Q. WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

A. YES, ‘S1R.

0. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO, SIR,

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO ADVISE YOU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, MR. MCCOY HAS ENTERED HIS

THE COURT: 1 WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE THE FACTS TO THE COURT, MR. WRIGHT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, IF THIS CASE HAD GONE TO

TRIAL WE WOULD EXPECT THE FACTS TO SHOW THAT BETWEEN THE DATES

LISTED IN THE BILL OF INDICTMENT THE DEFENDANT ALONG WITH HIS

CO-DEFENDANTS WERE ENGAGED IN WHAT THE OFFICERS FOUND TO BE A

SITUATION WHERE THEY WERE GOING BY AND GOING INTO AUTOMOBILES

AND REMOVING THE CONTENTS OF THOSE PARTICULAR AUTOMOBILES. IT

INVOLVED A SITUATION WHERE THEY WENT INTO THREE SEPARATE AND

INDEPENDENT AUTOMOBILES AND TOOK THE ITEMS LISTED IN THE BILL

OF INDICTMENT. THE THEFT BY TAKING WAS BECAUSE OF A PISTOL

THAT WAS TAKEN FROM ONE OF THE AUTOMOBILES AS IT WAS ENTERED.

THOSE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THE OTHER TWO CO-DEFENDANTS WERE SENT TO

PRETRIAL AND THIS DEFENDANT HERE WAS ALREADY IN THE DODGE

COUNTY PROGRAM AT THE TIME THAT THIS PARTICULAR THING WAS

WORKED OUT AND WE KNEW THAT HE WOULD BE BACK AT A LATER DATE AT

THE TIME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT,

ARE THE FACTS STATED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

CORRECT, MR. MCCOY?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: HAS THE STATE ENTERED INTO A PRE-PLEA

AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER?

MR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: STATE THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT.

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, THE STATE'S RECOMMENDATION

IS A TWO YEAR PROBATED SENTENCE ON THE CONDITION THAT HE PAY A

FINE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. MCCOY, ON COUNT NUMBER ONE I WILL LET YOU SERVE

A SENTENCE OF TWO YEARS AND I WILL PROBATE THAT SENTENCE ON

CONDITION THAT YOU PAY A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF SIX HUNDRED

3 DOLLARS, ON THE FURTHER CONDITION THAT YOU NOT VIOLATE THE LAW,

THAT YOU FOLLOW THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES OF THE PROBATION

DEPARTMENT AND THE COURT, AND ON COUNTS NUMBER TWO AND THREE --

THOSE ARE FELONIES, AREN'T THEY?

MR. WRIGHT: YES, SIR, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I WILL LET YOU SERVE A SENTENCE OF TWO

YEARS ON EACH OF THOSE COUNTS AND LET IT RUN CONCURRENT WITH

THE SENTENCE IMPOSED, LET THEM, RATHER, RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE

SENTENCE IMPOSED IN COUNT NUMBER ONE AND ON THE FURTHER

CONDITION THAT YOU NOT VIOLATE THE LAW, THAT YOU FOLLOW THE

ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND OF THE

COURT.

BY THE COURT:

Q. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. TUCKER?

A HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE.

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

A YES, SIR.

Q. ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

A. NO.

Q. WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

a. YES.

Q. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO.

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO ADVISE YQU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, PLEA HAS BEEN ENTERED.

THE COURT: IY WILL ACCEPT THE PLFA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE THE FACTS TO THE COURT, MR. WRIGHT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, IF THIS CASE HAD GONE TO

TRIAL WE WOULD EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE DEFENDANT

WAS PARKED IN AN AUTOMOBILE LATE AT NIGHT IN AN APARTMENT

COMPLEX WHERE THERE HAD BEEN A LOT OF BURGLARIES. POLICE

OFFICERS DROVE BY AND NOTICED HIM IN THE CAR, ASKED HIM WHAT HE

WAS DOING THERE AND -- ASKED HIM WHAT HE WAS DOING THERE, ASKED

FOR SOME IDENTIFICATION. HE COULDN'T PRODUCE IDENTIFICATION OR

A DRIVER'S LICENSE. AT THIS POINT THE OFFICERS HAD OCCASION TO

PLACE HIM UNDER ARREST, BEING THERE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S

LICENSE. PURSUANT TO THE ARREST THEY FOUND A SMALL AMOUNT OF

COCAINE ON HIS PERSON. HE WAS CHARGED WITH THAT.

THE COURT: ARE THE FACTS STATED BY THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY CORRECT, MR. TUCKER?

THE DEFENDANT: YES.

THE COURT: HAS THE STATE ENTERED INTO A PRE-PLEA

AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER?

MR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WILL YOU STATE THE TERMS OF THAT

AGREEMENT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, THE STATE'S RECOMMENDATION

IN THIS CASE IS GONNA BE A SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS TO SERVE

SEVEN MONTHS IN CONFINEMENT ON CONDITION THAT HE PAY A FINE.

THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT HE HAS A CURRENT CASE ON PROBATION

FROM THIS COURT, INDICTMENT 85694. I UNDERSTAND HE WANTS SEVEN

MONTHS REVOKED ON THAT TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH THIS.

MS. BORSUK: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HE WAIVES NOTICE?

MS. BORSUK:. YES, YOUR HONOK.

THE COURT: MR. TUCKER, ==

MR. WRIGHT: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR, I'M SORRY, BUT I

UNDERSTAND FROM MRS. HARRISON THAT HE ALSO HAS A MISDEMEANOR

THAT SHE WANTS SEVEN MONTHS ALSO CONCURRENT.

THE PROBATION OFFICER: THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. TUCKER, ON COUNT NUMBER ONE, ONLY COUNT IN THIS

INDICTMENT, I WILL LET YOU SERVE A SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS AND

I WILL PERMIT YOU TO BE RELEASED AFTER YOU SERVE SEVEN MONTHS

OF THAT SENTENCE AND I WILL LET YOU YOU SERVE THE BALANCE ON

PROBATION ON CONDITION THAT YOU PAY A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF SIX

HUNDRED DOLLARS, ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU NOT VIOLATE THE LAW,

THAT YOU FOLLOW THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES OF THE PROBATION

DEPARTMENT AND OF THE COURT, AND ON THE FURTHER -- WITH

REFERENCE TO BOTH OF YOUR SENTENCES ON WHICH YOU HAVE PROBATED

SENTENCES, SINCE YOU WAIVE NOTICE I WILL REVOKE SEVEN MONTHS ON

EACH OF THOSE TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH EACH OF THEM AND

CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN THIS CASE AND IT'S

PROBATED FURTHER ON CONDITION THAT YOU NOT VIOLATE THE LAW AND

ON CONDITION THAT YOU FOLLOW THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES OF THE

PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND THE COURT WHEN YOU'RE RELEASED FROM

THE PENITENTIARY.

MS. BORSUK: = THANK YOU.

BY THE COURT:

g-. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. GRAY?

A. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE.

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

A. YES, I 10.

Q. ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

A. NO, I'M NOT,

Q. WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

A. YES, IT WILL.

Q. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO, SIR, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO ADVISE YOU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, MR. GRAY HAS ENTERED A PLEA

TO SIMPLE ASSAULT.

THE COURT: I WILL ACCEPT R1S PLEA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE THE FACTS TO THE COURT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, AS I UNDERSTAND THE FACTS

OF THIS CASE, MR. GRAY AND THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE, MR. LARRY

CHISHOLM, APPARENTLY KNEW EACH OTHER. SOME SORT OF ALTERCATION

OR DISPUTE AROSE OVER THE VICTIM GIVING THE DEFENDANT SOME

MONEY. THE VICTIM AS I UNDERSTAND IT SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY

MONEY AND THE DEFENDANT HERE DIDN'T BELIEVE HIM AND AS A RESULT

STRUCK THE VICTIM WITH A KNIFE, CAUSING INJURIES WHICH LED TO

HIM BEING CHARGED WITH AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. AFTER TALKING WITH

THE VICTIM AND GETTING HIS POINT OF VIEW ON THIS PARTICULAR

THING WE HAVE AGREED TO REDUCE THIS TO SIMPLE ASSAULT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

ARE THE FACTS STATED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

CORRECT, MR. GRAY?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, THEY ARE.

THE COURT: HAS THE STATE ENTERED INTO A PRE-PLEA

AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER?

MR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: STATE TEE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT,

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, THE STATE'S RECOMMENDATION

IS A SENTENCE OF TWELVE MONTHS TO SERVE, COMMUTED TO THE TIME

THAT HE'S ALREADY SERVED IN PRISON.

THE COURT: I WILL FOLLOW YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

MS. BORSUK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: SUSPENDED ON TIME SERVED,

BY THE COURT:

0. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MS. TARVER?

A. TWELFTH GRADE.

Q. YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

A. RO, SIR.

Q. WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

WILL 1T BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

A. YES, SIR.

0. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO, SIP.

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO ADVISE YOU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

148

{PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, MS. TARVER HAS ENTERED A

GUILTY PLEA TO SIMPLE POSSESSION OF COCAINE.

THE COURT: I WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE THE FACTS TO THE COURT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, IF THIS CASE HAD GONE TO

TRIAL WE WOULD EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO BE THAT ON THE DATE

LISTED IN THE BILL OF INDICTMENT THE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THIS

CASE HAD A SEARCH WARRANT. IT WAS FOR ONE OF MS. TARVER'S SONS

AND A SECOND PERSON. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN THE SECOND PERSON AND M5, TARVER IS UR WAS. AS A

RESULT OF THIS WARRANT THEY FOUND MS. TARVER AS BEING THE ONLY

PERSON IN THE HOUSE, INSIDE OF THE HOUSE THEY FOUND SEVERAL

BAGS OF COCAINE, AS I UNDERSTAND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF

THIS CASE. THE SON AND THE PERSON THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR

WERE IN JAIL AT THE TIME THAT THEY EXECUTED THIS PARTICULAR

SEARCH WARRANT BUT THE DRUGS WERE FOUND INSIDE THE HOUSE AND

MS. TARVER BEING THE ONLY PERSON IN THERE WAS CHARGED WITH

POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE. AFTER NEGOTIATIRG WITH

MS. BORSUK WE HAVE AGREED TO LET HER PLEAD TO SIMPLE POSSESSION

OF COCAINE.

THE COURT. ALL RIGHT.

ARE THE PACTS STATED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

CORRECT, MS. TARVER?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

3 THE COURT: HAS THE STATE ENTERED INTO A PRE-PLEA

2 AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HER LAWYER?

3 MR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

A THE COURT: STATE THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT.

5 MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, THE STATE IS RECOMMENDING A

6 TWO YEAR PROBATED SENTENCE ON THE CONDITION THAT SHE PAY A

2 FINE.

8 THE COURT: MS. TARVER, I WILL LET YOU SERVE A

9 SENTENCE OF TWO YEARS, PROBATE IT ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU PAY

10 A FINE OF SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS, ON THE FURTHER CONDITION THAT

11 YOU NOT VIOLATE THE LAW, THAT YOU FOLLOW THE ORDERS AND

12 DIRECTIVES OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND OF THE COURT.

13 BY THE COURT:

14 Q. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. BYNUM?

15 A. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE.

16 Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

17 A. YES.

i8 Q. ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

ig INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

20 A. NO, SIR.

21 Q. WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

22 WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

23 A. YES, SIR.

24 Q. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

25 OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO.

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO ADVISE YOU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, MR. BYNUM ENTERED A PLEA TO

CRIMINAL TRESPASS.

THE COURT: I WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE THE FACTS TO THE COURT, MR. WRIGHT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, IF THIS CASE EAD GONE TO

TRIAL WE WOULD EXPECT THE PACTS TO SHOW THAT ON THE DATE LISTED

IN THE BILL OF INDICTMENT OFFICERS WITH THE ATLANTA POLICE

DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A SILENT ALARM TO WALKER ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL. AS A RESULT THE OFFICERS WENT TO THAT SCHOOL AND THEY

FOUND INSIDE OF THE BUILDING THE DEFENDANT ALONG WITH ANOTHER

PERSON, WHO HAPPENED TO BE A JUVENILE. THE JUVENILE WAS TAKEN

TO JUVENILE COURT AND THIS DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED AND PLACED IN

JAIL ON A BURGLARY CHARGE. ACCORDING TO MY INFORMATION THERE

WAS NOTHING MISSING. THERE WAS SOME MOVING AROUND OF ITEMS

INSIDE THE BUILDING AND HE WAS CHARGED WITH BURGLARY. HE'S

PLEADING GUILTY TO CRIMINAL TRESPASS.

THE COURT: ARE THE PACTS STATED BY -THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY CORRECT?

THE DEFENDANT: YES.

THE COURT: HAS THE STATE ENTERED INTO A PRE-PLEA

AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER?

MR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: STATE THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT.

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, WE'VE AGREED TO A TWELVE

MONTH PROBATED SENTENCE ON THE CONDITION THAT HE COMPLETE

FORTY-EIGHT HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PAY A FINE.

THE COURT: MR. BYNUM, I WILL LET YOU SERVE A

SENTENCE OF TWELVE MONTHS AND I WILL PROBATE THAT SENTENCE ON

CONDITION THAT YOU PAY A FINE OF THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS, ON THE

FURTHER CONDITION THAT vOU CORTRIBUTE FORTY-EIGHET 2UURS OF

COMMUNITY SERVICE, THAT YOU FOLLOW THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES OF

THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND THE COURT AND THE OFFICIALS WITH

THE COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM.

BY THE COURT:

Q. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. WILLIAMS?

A. TO THE NINTH.

0. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

A. YES, SIR,

J. ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

A. NO, SIR.

Qo: WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

Q. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO, SIR.

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO ADVISE YOU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, THE PLEA HAS BFEN ENTERED.

THE COURT: I WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE-THE FACTS TO THE COURT, MR. WRIGHT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, IF THIS CASE HAD GONE TO

TRIAL WE WOULD EXPECT THE FACTS TO BE THAT ON THE DATE LISTED

IN THE BILL OF INDICTMENT OFFICERS WITH THE ATLANTA POLICE

DEPARTMENT HAD OCCASION TO GO TO THE ADDRESS OF 288% LEILA LANE

AS A RESULT OF A FIGHT CALL. AS I UNDERSTAND THE FACTS IN

TH1S, THE DEFENDANT HERE HAD STRUCK HIS NEPHEW, I BELIEVE, WITH

A STICK AND THAT WAS WHAT THE POLICE WERE CALLED FOR. AS A

RESULT OF THE POLICE COMING THERE BECAUSE OF THE FIGHT CALL

THEY HAD OCCASION TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT ON THE CHARGE, I

BELIEVE, OF SIMPLE ASSAULT FOR HITTING THE NEPHEW WITH A

STICK. THEY SEARCHED HIM AND THEY FOUND SOME COCAINE ON HIS

PERSON, A SMALL AMOUNT I BELIEVE IT WAS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

ARE THE FACTS STATED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

CORRECT, MR. WILLIAMS?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: HAS THE STATE ENTERED INTO A PRE-PLEA

AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER?

MR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: STATE THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT.

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, THE STATE'S RECOMMENDATION

IS A TWO YEAR PROBATED SENTENCE ON THE CONDITION THAT HE PAY A

FINE.

THE COURT: MR. WILLIAMS, 1 WILL LET YOU SERVE A

SENTENCE OF TWO YEARS AND I WILL PROBATE THAT SENTENCE ON

CONDITION THAT YOU PAY A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF SIX HUNDRED

DOLLARS AND ON THE FURTHER CONDITION THAT YOU NOT VIOLATE THE

LAW, THAT YOU FOLLOW THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES OF THE PROBATION

DEPARTMENT AND THE COURT.

MS. BORSUK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT,

BY THE COURT:

Q. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. KIRKLAND?

A TWO YEARS IN COLLEGE.

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

A YES.

Q. ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

A. NO, NO, SIR.

Q. WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

A. YES.

Q. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO, SIR.

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO ADVISE YOU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

( PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, AS IT RELATES TO -- MR,

KIRKLAND HAS TWO CASES. AS RELATES TO INDICTMENT A-99473 WE'RE

GOING TO MOVE TO DEAD DOCKET THAT ONE. THE VICTIM SIGNED A

WAIVER OF PROSECUTION IN THAT CASE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT

MR. WRIGHT: HE'S PLEADING GUILTY ON THE SECOND ONE.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: PLEA HAS BEEN SIGNED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE THE FACTS TO THE COURT, MR. WRIGHT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, APPARENTLY THIS CASE ARISES

OUT OF AN ONGOING DOMESTIC DISPUTE WITH THE VICTIM IN THIS

CASE, MS. GAIL MAHONEY. AS I UNDERSTAND THE FACTS OF THIS

PARTICULAR CASE THE DEFENDANT STRUCK MS. MAHONEY WITH HIS HANDS

AND FEET, CAUSING HER SOME INJURIES WHERE SHE HAD TO GO TO THE

HOSPITAL. I HAVE TALKED TO MS. MAHONEY ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.

SHE WAS HERE THIS MORNING PURSUANT TO MY REQUEST. AFTER

TALKING TO HER SHE HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT SHE WISHES, DOES

NOT WISH FOR MR. KIRKLAND TO BE INCARCERATED ANYMORE BUT SHE

DOES WISH TO HAVE HIM PLACED ON PROBATION AND ON THE CONDITION

THAT HE STAY AWAY FROM HER. SHE ALSO INDICATED TO ME THAT HE

PROBABLY HAS AN ALCOHOL PROBLEM AND MY RECOMMENDATION IS BASED

UPON THE INFORMATION SHE'S GIVEN ME CONCERNING THIS CASE.

THOSE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

THE COURT: ARE THE FACTS STATED BY TEE CISTRICT

ATTORNEY CORRECT, MR. KIRKLAND?

THE DEFENDANT: YES,

THE COURT: MR. WRIGHT, HAVE YOU ENTERED INTO A

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER?

MR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ‘STATE THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT.

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, WE'VE AGREED TC A THREE

YEAR PROBATED SENTENCE ON THE CONDITION THAT HE COMPLETE SOME

ALCOHOL TREATMENT AND ALSO STAY AWAY FROM MS. MAHONEY.

THE COURT: MR. KIRKLAND, I WILL LET YOU SERVE A

SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS AND I WILL PROBATE THAT SENTENCE ON

CONDITION THAT YOU PAY A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF SIX HUNDRED

DOLLARS AND ON THE FURTHER CONDITION THAT YOU COMPLETE AN

ALCOHOLIC TREATMENT PROGRAM AND THAT YOU NOT BOTHER OR DISTURB

THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, BY CALLING

HER OVER THE TELEPHONE OR ACCOSTING HER ON THE STREET OR AT HER

HOME AND RESIDENCE OR ANY OTHER PLACE, THAT YOU NOT VIOLATE THE

LAW, THAT YOU FOLLOW THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES OF THE PROBATION

DEPARTMENT AND OF THE COURT.

MR. BARTON: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

BY THE COURT:

Q. HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL, MR. ZILLAMON?

A. TENTH GRADE.

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS OR ANY

INTOXICANTS AT THIS TIME?

A. NO, SIR.

Q. WHATEVER PLEA THAT YOU MAY ENTER IN COURT TODAY,

WILL IT BE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. HAS ANYONE THREATENED YOU OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD

OR HOPE THEREOF IN ORDER T0 GET YOU TO ENTER A PLEA IN THIS

COURT?

A. NO, SIR.

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO ADVISE YOU THAT ANY ALLEGED

PRE-PLEA AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND YOUR LAWYER IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT.

(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, PLEA HAS BEEN TENDERED.

THE COURT: I WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA OF GUILTY. WILL

YOU STATE THE FACTS TO THE COURT, MR. WRIGHT?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, IF THIS CASE HAD GONE TO

TRIAL WE WOULD EXPECT THE FACTS TO SHOW THAT ON THE DATE LISTED

IN THE INDICTMENT THE DEFENDANT ALONG WITH THREE OTHER PERSONS WERE AT THE ART CENTER MARTA STATION. THEY APPARENTLY HAD,

WERE RIDING IN AN ELEVATOR WITH ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL. AS A

RESULT TWO OF THEM BLOCKED THE DOOR AND TWO OF THEM ATTEMPTED

TO TAKE THE MAN'S WALLET OUT OF HIS POCKET. THREE OF THEM RAN

AND GOT AWAY. THIS DEFENDANT WENT DOWN INTO THE MARTA STATION

AND WAS IDENTIFIED BY THE VICTIM AND ARRESTED BY THE POLICE

OFFICER AS BEING A PERSON WHO ATTEMPTED TO TAKE THE VICTIM'S

WALLET. THE DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED AND GAVE THE OFFICER SOME

INFORMATION CONCERNING THE OTHER PERSONS BUT NO ARRESTS WERE

MADE PURSUANT TO THE INFORMATION HE GAVE TO THE OFFICERS.

THOSE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

OF THE CASE.

THE COURT: ARE THE FACTS STATED BY THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY CORRECT, MR. ZILLAMON?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: HAS THE STATE ENTERED INTO A PRE-PLEA

AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER?

MR. WRIGHT: YOUR HONOR, BASED ON OUR NEGOTIATIONS

MS. BORSUK AND I HAVE AGREED THAT MR. ZILLAMON BECAUSE OF HIS

158

AGE PROBABLY SHOULD BE IN THE TESTING TO DETERMINE WHETHER

DODGE OR A HALFWAY HOUSE WOULD BE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE FOR HIM.

THE COURT: - ALL RIGHT. I WILL ACCEPT HIS PLEA OF

GUILTY AND ASK HIM TO REPORT BACK TO THIS COURT FOR SENTENCING

ON AUGUST 19 AT NINE THIRTY.

THE CLERK: JUDGE, WILL HAVE TO BE ON THE

TWENTY-SIXTH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, AUGUST 26, NINE THIRTY,

CERTIFICATE

STATE OF GEORGIA,

COUNTY OF FULTON:

I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE, COMPLETE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

TAKEN DOWN BY ME IN THE CASE AFORESAID.

THIS CERTIFICATION IS EXPRESSLY WITHDRAWN AND

DENIED UPON THE DISASSEMBLY OR PHOTOCOPYING OF THE

FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT, OR ANY PART THEREOF INCLUDING

EXHIBITS, UNLESS SAID DISASSEMBLY OR PHOTOCOPYING IS DONE

BY THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER AND ORIGINAL
SIGNATURE AND SEAL IS ATTACHED THERETO.

THIS, THE oA34ADAY OF lL nein ; 1907.
J

Irae. [2 Int ellanel

MARY KA. MC LELLAND, A-257
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
ATLANTA JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

% - - A BRE a ~ ge
SFSISIGAIN. PLT F.8D Sheba Uae Rw. IL ~Si RUPLSIE. Ig Sy a ——— An ee ee FEA Pn

—— ian tee

AFFIDA . AND WARRANT FOR ARREST OF PRO: IONER ~~"
STATE OF SE0R0IA FULTON COUN1SUPERIORCOURT

gE NUMBER: A-99174
BEN WRIGHT CHARGE: y ¢.c.s.A.
GEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY

: STUYVESANT M. REID i
Personally appeared , who, being duly

sworn on oath deposes and says that BEN WRIGHT was
placed on probation by this Court on the 5TH dayof AUGUST 1988,
upon the charge of vV.G.C.S.A

and that to the best of affiant's knowledge and belief said defendant has
sipge viplated the. terms of probation in the following manner: FAILURE TO REPORT AND

That affiant makes this affidavit for the purposes of obtaining a warrant
for the arrest of said probationer in order that (he or she) may be returned
to this Court to answer this charge of violation of bati 2

TUYWESANT M. REID, P.O. I

to and subscribed before me this

i dgy of NOVEMBRER,9 82

Notary Public, Fulton County, Georgia
My Commission Expires Mar. 30, 1998

Notary Public

GEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY
TO ALL AND SINGULAR, THE SHERIFFS, DEPUTY SHERIFFS, AND ALL OTHER DULY
CONSTITUTED ARRESTING OFFICERS.
Affidavit having been made that the above named defendant has violated the terms of
probation, you are hereby commanded to arrest said defendant, to safely keep (him or her)
until (he or she) may be brought before this Court to answer the charge of violation of
probation as set forth in the foregoing affidavit.

THE SENTENCE OF THE DEFENDANT IS HEREBY TOLLED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF OCGA

SEC. 428-36 (a), AND THE SIGNING OF THIS ORDER.

This the 1p a ai z oS : NHR Qisanaina
JUDGE,
SUPERIOR E00 r OF YOON county

GEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY:

DILIGENT SEARCH MADE AND DEFENDANT,

BEN WRIGHT

NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE JURISDICTION OF FILEDINOFFICE ~~ NOLTQREF

ci, NOV 2 ae THIS 4,2 / DAY or fb 0 17

OY SHER — PROBATION OFFICER

FULTON COUNTY GEGRGIA

ec a
' ' fot : ' '

- : 2 do ee
(&] ' ' ' ' ' '
& ' ' ' ' " '

2 : yx)
T ©. RB 7] ' o [J ' ] '

3 5 2 (|[E% : bor
N We : SE

ANZ 23 SNE
i pa Ee : < = fo: ' '

3 z FE
Q ; = » = a bias

' :

«|
\ |

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

THE STATE

Plaintiff

VS.

BEN WRIGHT,

Defendant

NOTICE

2 So

INDICTMENT No. / - 5 %/ 7

OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW Charles W. Boyle and enters his name as

attorney of record for the

action.

FRANKLIN, MORAN & BOYLE

852 Gordon Street S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30310
(404) 752-5757

£1LED IN OFFICE

ET Ea
BE 2 2 1988

DEPUTY Chen L
on | COURT

FULTON COUNTY GEORGIA

defendant in the above-styled

Respectfully submitted,

(ih og
CHARLES W.(BOVYLE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have this day served upon

opposing counsel a true and correct copy of the within and

foregoing NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, by hand delivering a copy of

same to the Assistant District Attorney.

This 15th day of July, 1988.

VA
CHARLES W. BQYLE

FRANKLIN, MORAN & BOYLE

852 Gordon Street S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30310
(404) 752-5757

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

THE STATE :

VS Jf
BEN WRIGHT, : INDICTMENT NO. # od 7

Defendant

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

The search of defendant’s home is an illegal search

pursuant to an illegal search warrant. It is well settled that

rumors or information from unidentified persons cannot form a

basis for search warrants. Thornton v. State, 125 Ga.App. 374.

See also Courson v. State, 125 Ga.App. 373. See also State v. |

Brown, 366 SE.2d 816 (Ga. App 1988 Case No. 75322) attached hereto!

as Exhibit "a."

Respectfully submitted,

2,
CHARLES W. Dor

. FRANKLIN, MORAN & BOYLE |
852 Gordon Street S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30310
(404) 752-5757

FILED IN OFFICE 5, 1%
fl --:2121 - 108”

A |

St B

ty
Z.. RLTTES
A,

H SIRT OY I VEER
. Rl

ERMBIT SA

RE
Fg

816 Ga.

to suppress, which the trial court denied.

After the condemnation hearing, appellant
filed a motion for new trial, which was also

denied. Appellant contends that the trial
court erred in failing to grant his motions

because the seizure was made without

probable cause and not pursuant to the
statute. Our review of the record reveals
that the statute subsection about which

appellant complains, OCGA
§ 16-13-49(a)1), does not apply here. In

this case, the money was taken and re-
tained by the authorities only after appel-
lant denied knowledge and ownership of

the funds. The testimony offered at the

condemnation hearing showed that the

money was held because appellant denied

that it belonged to him. Under these cir-

cumstances, no “seizure incident to an ar-

rest” occurred; at the time of the initial

taking, about which appellant complains,

the authorities merely took possession of

property that had no apparent or admitted

owner. “[T]he constitutional protection of

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

does not apply to property which has been

abandoned. [Cit.]’ Williams v. State, 171

Ga.App. 546(2), 320 S.E.2d 389 (1984).

[2] Appellant also argues that the mon-

ey was seized without probable cause, and
again we need not decide the exact issue

raised. Assuming arguendo that the sei-

zure did take place at the time of his arrest

as appellant contends, it is axiomatic that

he had no standing to contest the seizure

since he consented to the search and disa-

vowed ownership of the money. Ramsey

v. State, 183 Ga.App. 48(1), 357 S.E.2d 869

(1987). The trial court did not err in mak-

ing its rulings.

Judgment affirmed.

BANKE, PJ., and CARLEY, J.,
concur specially.

BANKE, Presiding Judge, concurring

specially.

[3] An undercover agent from Michigan

testified that in July of 1986, some two

months after the seizure occurred, the ap-
pellant confided to him that, “several
months earlier,” the police in Dalton, Geor-

gia, had seized $65,500 in funds which he

* RESPYT a BYORI LE CK ~-

366 SOUTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES

had obtained from the sale of some ‘bales

of marijuana.” Thus, there was evidence

to support the trial court's conclusion that
the funds were subject to forfeiture pursu-
ant to OCGA § 16-13-49. The seizure it-
self having been proper for the reasons
stated in the majority decision, I therefore
concur in the affirmance of the trial court's
judgment.

I am authorized to state that Judge CAR-
LEY joins in this special concurrence.

The STATE

Vv.

BROWN et al.

No. 756322.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 2, 1988.

Defendants were arrested and indicted
for alleged violations of Controlled Sub-

stances Act and Dangerous Drug Act. .The
Richmond Superior Court, Pickett, J.
granted defendants’ motion to suppress ev-

idence seized during search of their home,
and State appealed. The Court of Appeals,
Benham, J., held that information supplied

by anonymous tipster that drug activity

was taking place at search warrant location

and police officers’ independent observa-

tions of activity consistent with drug sales
at location were insufficient to supply req-
uisite probable cause necessary for is-
suance of search warrant.

Affirmed.

Banke, P.J., filed opinion concurring
specially, in which Carley, J., joined.

1. Searches and Seizures ¢=118
" Conclusory statement contained in ap-

plication for search warrant that anony-

——. —

2121 7x 11

mous tipster v

vided insufficic

termine that i

credible so as

sion that proba

search premise

sought. (Perl

concurring 8p

Amend. 4.

2. Searches ar

Lack of in
davit as to ba:

information ths

ed at home fo

sought provide

ing of probabl

of search warr

two Judges spe

Const.Amend.

3. Drugs and

Observatio

traffic pattern

cion that contr:

ises and is in:

issuance of sea

J., with two J

U.S.C.A. Const

4. Drugs. and :

Probable c:

search warrant

cers’ independe
at which ano

contraband was

tion amounted

vation of activi’

fic pattern. (

Judges specia

Const.Amend. -

Sam B. Sible;
Guest, Asst. D

. Martin C. Pu

BENHAM, J

Following th:

search their ho

and indicted fo

Georgia Contro.

Georgia Dange
court granted a

of some ‘bales

e was evidence

conclusion that

rfeiture pursu-

The seizure it-

or the reasons

ion, I therefore

“he trial court's

iat Judge CAR-

ncurrence.

Jeorgia.

-d and indicted
trolled Sub-
rug Act. The

Pickett, J.,

0 suppress ev-
Of their home,

rt of Appeals,

ation supplied
drug activity

rant location

dent observa-

ith drug sales

to supply req-

ssary for is-

n concurring

, joined.

°118

tained in ap-

that anony-

RA
S
S
R
S
T
Te

STATE v. BROWN Ga. 817
Cite as 366 S.E2d 816 (Ga.App. 1988)

mous tipster was ‘concerned citizen” pro-

vided insufficient basis upon which to de-
termine that informant’s information was
credible so as to support magistrate’s deci-
sion that probable cause had been shown to

search premises for which warrant was

sought. (Per Benham, J., with two Judges

concurring specially) U.S.C.A. Const.
Amend. 4.

2. Searches and Seizures ¢=118

Lack of information contained in affi-

davit as to basis for anonymous tipster’s
information that contraband might be locat-
ed at home for which search warrant was
sought provided insufficient basis for find-

ing of probable cause to support issuance
of search warrant. (Per Benham, J., with

two Judges specially EoncurTing, > 1. S. C.A.
Const.Amend. 4.

3. Drugs and Narcotics &188(2)

Observation of activity that. fits drug
traffic pattern raises at most mere suspi-
cion that contraband is being kept on prem-
ises and is insufficient cause to support

issuance of search warrant. (Per Benham,
J., with two Judges specially concurring.)
U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4.

4. Drugs and Narcotics &188(7)

Probable cause to support issuance of

search warrant was not supplied by offi-
cers’ independent investigation of location
at which anonymous informant claimed

contraband was being sold where investiga-
tion amounted to nothing more than obser-

vation of activity that resembled drug traf-
fic. pattern. (Per Benham, J., with two

Judges specially concurring.) U.S.C.A.

Const.Amend. 4.

Sam B. Sibley, Jr., Dist. Atty., George N.

Guest, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellant.

Martin C. Puetz, Augusta, for appellees.

BENHAM, Judge.’

Following the execution of a warrant to

search their home, appellees were arrested
and indicted for alleged violations of the

Georgia Controlled Substances Act and the

Georgia Dangerous Drug Act. The trial
court granted appellees’ motion to suppress

the evidence seized during the search of
their home, and the State appeals from that

ruling. See OCGA § 5-7-1(4).

The trial court ordered suppression of

the evidence after concluding that the affi-

davit executed in support of the application

of the warrant did not set forth sufficient

facts to establish probable cause to believe

that marijuana and cocaine were being kept

at the Brown residence. In the affidavit
the trial court found deficient, the affiant

officer averred that he and another mem-
ber of the Narcotics Squad of the Augusta
Police Department “received information
from a concerned citizen that a large quan-
tity of Marihuana and some Cocaine is be-
ing kept in [the Browns’] dwelling. During

the past two days these officers have had
this dwelling under observation during the

day and night, mostly at night, and have
observed numerous black males and fe-

males go to this dwelling staying only two

to three minutes. The officers also have

observed Carmella Brown meet some of

these individuals at the front door and give
them small manila [envelopes] suspected of

containing marihuana, for unknown

amount of cash which has been seen ex-

changed. Some of these individuals have

been identified by the officers as being

known drug users and abusers. Officers
have also seen some individuals leaving

this dwelling enter their vehicles and open

what appeared [to be] a manila envelope

which was in their hand upon leaving the

dwelling and after a few minutes light

what is suspected of being a handrolled
marihuana cigarette and then depart the

area.”

1. The magistrate had as his task “to

make a practical, common-sense decision
whether, given all the circumstances set

forth in the affidavit before him, including

the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of

persons supplying hearsay information,

there is a fair probability that contraband
or evidence of a crime will be found in a
particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462

U.S. 218, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.
2d 527 (1983); State v. Stephens, 252 Ga.

181, 182, 811 S.E.2d 823 (1984). We begin
our review of the issues presented by this

818 Ga.

case with the acknowledgement that we

“should apply a deferential standard of re-

view [of the magistrate’s determination of

probable cause] in order to further the

Fourth Amendment's strong preference for
searches conducted pursuant to a war-
rant.” State v. Fultz, 171 Ga.App. 886,
888, 321 S.E.2d 381 (1984). However, the

fact that a warrant was. issued and the
search conducted pursuant thereto does not
cause us to terminate our review. We

must determine, among other things,
whether the hearsay information supplied

to the affiant, coupled with the affiant's
personal observations, presented a fair
probability that contraband would be found
at the Brown residence.

[1,2] 2. As was earlier stated, the

magistrate must consider the veracity and
basis of knowledge of persons supplying

hearsay information to an affiant officer.

The affidavit in the case at bar contained
no information about the basis of the infor-
mant's knowledge or reasons why the in-

formant should be believed. In effect, the

investigation which culminated in the ar-

rest of appellees had as its inception infor-

mation received by the affiant officer over

the telephone from an anonymous tipster
described by the affiant as a “concerned
citizen.” ‘This court has always given the
concerned citizen informer a preferred sta-
tus insofar as testing the credibility of his
information [Cits.]’ Whitten v. State, 174

Ga.App. 867, 868, 331 S.E.2d 912 (1985).
However, before an anonymous tipster can

be elevated to the status of “concerned

citizen,” thereby gaining entitlement to the
preferred status regarding credibility con-
comitant with that title, there must be
placed before the magistrate facts from

which it can be concluded that the anony-
mous tipster is, in fact, a “concerned citi-

zen.” See Cichetti v. State, 181 Ga.App.
272(1), 351 S.E.2d 707 (1986) (affiant per-
sonally knew the informant to be truthful,
gainfully employed, and without a criminal

record); Alewine v. State, 180 Ga.App. 679,

350 S.E.2d 46 (1986) (affiant as well as the

issuing justice of the peace knew the infor-

mant, who was a long-time area resident, a

truthful businessman, and without a crimi-

nal record); Futch v. State, 178 Ga.App.

366 SOUTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES

115(1), 342 S.E.2d 493 (1986) (informant
described as mature, regularly employed

person who displayed a truthful demeanor,

had a personal connection to the suspect,

and made a personal appearance before the
magistrate); Whitten v. State, supra (in-

formant known to the affiant for more

than three years and described as a ma-
ture, regularly-employed family man with
no criminal record); State v. Hockman, 171

Ga.App. 504, 320 S.E.2d 241 (1984) (infor- -

mant known to the affiant for more than

four years and described as a mature, gain-

fully-employed person with no criminal
record who had previously given. informa-
tion which led to the arrest and conviction

of three drug felons); Keller v. State, 169

Ga.App. 596, 314 S.E.2d 255 (1984) (infor-

mant known to the affiant for six months

and described as a mature, regularly-em-
ployed, church-going family man); GaDon-
na v. State, 164 Ga.App. 582(1), 298 S.E.2d

556 (1982) (informants known to the affiant

and described as reliable, successful, re-

spected businessmen of the community);

and Page v. State, 136 Ga.App. 807, 222
S.E.2d 661 (1975) (informant known to the

affiant for over a year and described as a
mature, truthful, gainfully-employed, re-
spected person in the community with no
known criminal record). An informants

veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge

are “highly relevant in determining the val-
ue of his report” and while these elements

are not ‘entirely separate and independent

elements to be rigidly exacted in every

case,” they are “closely intertwined issues

that may usefully illuminate the common-

sense, practical question whether there is

‘probable cause’ to believe that contraband

or evidence is located in a particular place.”
Illinois v. Gates, supra, 462 U.S. at 230,

103 S.Ct. at 2328. The affidavit in the case
at bar contained no information from which

it could be gleaned that the tipster was, in

fact, a “concerned citizen.” The magis-

trate was given nothing other than the

affiant’s conclusory statement that the tip-

ster was a concerned citizen. That will not

suffice. See State v. Jackson, 166 Ga.App.

671(2), 305 S.E.2d 417 (1983). Therefore,
the informant was not entitled to a pre-

oh ed

d
m
a

TT Ty pp ——
Lr EARL

2121 TH

ferred

ity of
of inf¢

basis «

matior

In poi
at the

mant

could

found

admitt

a susp

the afi

depenc
“were

did no

lish pr

na anc

home.

[3,4

ner ob

whom

and al

for she

pellee

manila

Some 0

vehicle.

velopes
cigaret

activity

raises

traban«

does r

Ga.Apr
McGui

S.E.2d

Ga.App
Compa:

110(1),
affidavi

informs

the pre

officer :

of the *

er seen

them as

ously “

In su

that the

3 ¢

(1986) (informant

-egularly employed

truthful demeanor,

ion to the suspect,

yearance before the

». State, supra (in-

affiant for more

lescribed as a ma-

d family man with

te v. Hockman, 171

1 241 (1984) (infor- -

iant for more than

1 as a mature, gain- ~~

with no criminal
sly given informa-
rest and conviction

{eller v. State, 169

1 255 (1984) (infor-

ant for six months

ture, regularly-em-

nily man); GaDon-
. 582(1), 298 S.E.2d

nown to the affiant

le, successful, re-

f the community);
Ga.App. 807, 222

mant known to the

and described as a

‘ully-employed, re-
ommunity with no

An informant’s

basis of knowledge

etermining the val-

hile these elements

te and independent

exacted in every

intertwined issues

inate the common-

1 whether there is

ve that contraband

a particular place.”

., 462 U.S. at 230,

ffidavit in the case

mation from which

the tipster was, in
zen.” The magis-
'g other than the

ement that the tip-

zen. That will not

skson, 166 Ga.App.

1983). Therefore,

entitled to a pre-

L
e
d

,
,

P
P

J
P
L
N

T
I
F

WO
ST

BUSINESS RESOURCES v. GENERAL AMUSEMENTS Ga. 819
Cite as 366 S.E2d 819 (Ga.App. 1988)

ferred status insofar as testing the credibil-
ity of his information. The complete lack

of information about the informant and the

basis of his knowledge relegated the infor-
mation he supplied to the status of rumor.

In point of fact, the affiant officer testified

at the suppression hearing that the infor-

mant gave no facts from which the officer

could conclude that contraband might be

found in the Brown home, and the officer
admitted the information amounted to “just

a suspicion” on the part of the informant.

8. The trial court also concluded that
the affiant’s statements concerning the in-
dependent investigation conducted by him

“were conclusory statements at best” that

did not set forth sufficient facts to estab-

lish probable cause to believe that marijua-

na and cocaine were present at appellees’
home. : :

[3,4] The affiant officer and his part-

ner observed “numerous” people, some of
whom were described as known drug users

and abusers, visiting appellee's residence
for short periods of time during which ap-

pellee Carmella Brown gave them small
manila envelopes in exchange for cash.

Some of the visitors, upon re-entering their
vehicles, appeared to open the manila en-

velopes and, several minutes later, light a

cigarette and leave. The observation of

activity that fits a “drug traffic pattern”
raises at most a mere suspicion that con-
traband is being kept on the premise, and

does not amount to probable cause to
search the home. State v. Porter, 167

Ga.App. 293, 306 S.E.2d 377 (1983);
McGuire v. State, 136 Ga.App. 271(2), 220

S.E.2d 769 (1975); Maxwell v. State, 127

Ga.App. 168, 170, 193 S.E.2d 14 (1972).

Compare Borders v. State, 173 Ga.App.

110(1), 325 S.E.2d 626 (1984) (where the
affidavit contained “specific drug-related
information concerning those who lived on

the premises.”) At the hearing, the affiant
officer admitted he did not know the names
of the “known drug abusers” and had nev-
er seen them before, and then described

them as people his partner had seen previ-

ously “in drug areas.”

In sum, we concur with the trial court

that the affidavit presented to the magis-

trate did not contain sufficient information

to conclude that there was a fair probabili-

ty that contraband would be found on ap-
pellees’ premises.

Judgment affirmed.

BANKE, PJ., and CARLEY, J,

concur specially.

BANKE, Presiding Judge, concurring
specially.

The trial judge's decision to grant the

motion to suppress was based, in part, on
the following finding of fact: “[The affi-

ant’s] testimony is not credible in that he
was unable to corroborate, in any manner,

his testimony of when and where the sur-

veillance took place and the number of
individuals who were allegedly seen going

to and from [the defendant's residence).”

The trial judge sits as the ultimate trier

of fact at a hearing on a motion to sup-

press, and his findings will not be disturbed

if there is any evidence to support them.

State v. Swift, 232 Ga. 535, 536, 207 S.E.2d
459 (1974). “Credibility of witnesses, reso-

lution of any conflict or inconsistency, and

weight to be accorded testimony [are] sole-

ly the province of the judge on a motion to

suppress.” Rogers v. State, 155 Ga.App.

685, 686, 272 S.E.2d 549 (1980). Conse-
quently, I agree that the grant of the mo-
tion to suppress should be affirmed.

I am authorized to state that Judge CAR-

LEY joins in this special concurrence.

BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC. et al.

GENERAL AMUSEMENTS, INC. et al

No. 75525.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 3, 1988.

Owners of video games brought action
against company which agreed to place and

WEP SNL, vw yg

2191 no 114
-—

nd 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have on this day served upon

the Assistant District Attorney of Fulton County, a true and

correct copy of the within and foregoing MOTION TO SUPPRESS,

STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS,

and BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS by hand

| delivering a copy of same.

This the 15th day of July, 1988.

(HY il
CHARLES W. BOY
Attorney for endant

FRANKLIN, MORAN & BOYLE
852 Gordon Street S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30310
(404) 752-5757

- 2:2121 : -

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

- THE STATE :

cr} FR vs. : INDICTMENT NO. +4 _ rset

| BEN WRIGHT :

Defendant :

ON FO RY

COMES NOW BEN WRIGHT, Defendant in the above-styled

| indictment and moves the Court to require the State through the

| Assistant District Attorney to produce at trial of the

above-styled case, and in any and all non jury hearings in the

~ above-styled case the following:

Qlott™n
FILED IN OFFICE

H
|

JUL 201988
120 wr se

1) Copy of all reports and memoranda connected with
the said charges against the named Defendant.

2) All written statements of witnesses in possession
of the prosecutor relating to the charges against the
named Defendant in the above-styled indictment, as well
as all statements relating to any other Defendant named
in the above-styled indictment.

3) Names, addresses and telephone numbers and
whereabouts of all the witnesses to be called by the
State in the trial of the named Defendant, and any
other Defendant named in the above-styled indictment.

4) Any and all tape recordings, video recordings, and
or telephonic conversations intercepted by any law
enforcement gathered from the Defendant during the
course of this investigation.

5) Statements of all persons including memoranda,
summaries or recordings of such statements of any

id ( <“~person, made to an : : ’ Y law enforcement officer or the
oepOTY EEK Suipeaion Eola investigative staff of any prosecutor in any way

connected with the above-styled indictment.
FULTOH COUMTY CLORGIA

A 6) Results of all reports of any scientific tests or
experiments or studies made in connection with the
above-styled case and all copies of such reports.

7) All fingerprint documents and reports relating to
the crime alleged to have been committed by the named
Defendant.

8) Copies of all search warrants, any affidavits
applied for in the above-styled case whether said
search warrants were executed or not executed, and
whether or not upon execution any contraband was found.

9) The full names and addresses of all persons who
have given information to the prosecuting attorney for
law enforcement officers relating to the arrest of the
Defendant and the charges against him.

10) The criminal records, and any list or summary
reflecting criminal records of all persons whom the
State intends to call as a witness in the trial of the
above-named Defendant.

11) All written and recorded statements and all
summaries or memoranda of any oral or written
statements made by the Defendant, and all other
defendant named in the above-styled indictment.

12) All diagrams, sketches, and pictures which have
been made by or shown to any witness or prospective
witness in the above-styled case.

13) A detailed description of all physical items other
than documents and pictures which the prosecutor
anticipates using in the trial of the above-named
Defendant, and the exact place where and under whose
custody such items are being held.

14) Any summaries prepared by any police agencies or
by the District Attorney of any tape recordings of
Defendant in the relation to the above-styled charges.
This Motion is brought pursuant and within the context

of Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1968) and Banks v. State, 235

| Ga. 121 (1975).

WHEREFORE, Defendant moves that the State be required

to produce all said documents and other evidence referred to

above.

| Respectfully submitted,

C2.5C
CHARLES W.
Attorney for iat

FRANKLIN, MORAN & BOYLE
852 Gordon Street, S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30310
(404) 752-5757

| 222121 :::704

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

THE STATE

i VS.

BEN WRIGHT

Defendant

STATE OF GEORGIA

INDICTMENT NO.

DEMAND FOR COPIES OF THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS

AND SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

COMES NOW the above-styled Defendant, and makes this

demand for a copy of any and all scientific reports, and any and

all statements of the Defendant, whether or not exculpatory, to

be provided to him not later than ten (10) days before the date

of trial pursuant 0.C.G.A. Section 17-7-210 and 0.C.G.A. Section

17-7-211.

FRANKLIN, MORAN & BOYLE
852 Gordon Street, S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30310
(404) 752-5757

[FILED IN OFFICE ~

206 |

Respectfully submitted,

CL fir
CHARLES W. BOYLE
Attorney for Defendant

—

22121 TAZ 705

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that I have this day served upon the

District Attorney’s Office of Fulton County, with a true and

correct copy of the within and foregoing pleadings by hand

. delivery, listed as follows:

| Motion For Discovery;

| Demand For Copy Of Indictment And List Of

i Witnesses.

I This 15th day of July, 1988.

Cl wh
CHARLES W. BOYLE >

FRANKLIN, MORAN & BOYLE

852 Gordon Street S.W.
- Atlanta, Georgia 30310

(404) 752-5757

— 9421 +706

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

THE STATE :

Vs :

| BEN WRIGHT, : INDICTMENT No. [I - TG F/ Zr

/ | Defendant 3

FILED IN QFFICE ; |
MOTION TO SUPPRESS |

JUL 201588 COMES NOW the above named Defendant before arraignment

OE ata en this, his Motion To Suppress, and shows the Court the |

Lasik I lagine facts:

That on April 27, 1988, the Defendant and his son,

Stanley Wright, were arrested at his home located at 259

Richardson Street, Apt. 210, Atlanta, Georgia by officers of the

|| City of Atlanta Police Department.

| 2.
I
8]

That said Magistrate did not have any probable cause,

or reasonable objective grounds for executing the search warrant.

Specifically, the affidavit is totally devoid of any verification

of the tip received by the concerned citizen and no additional

information was provided to the issuing judge.

As a result the Defendant was illegally detained and

arrested, and Defendant’s home was searched illegally and

| Defendant was held in illegal custody because said search al

was issued without any probable cause. 2:2121 +1077
\

That the police illegally seized certain items, money,

contraband, things, and testimony from the Defendant, and from the

home of defendant in violation of the Defendant’s rights under the

Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, and |

| also in violation of Article I, Section I, Paragraph (13), of the |

| Constitution of the State of Georgia. |

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that a hearing be held on |

his Motion; that the Court issue an order suppressing any article,

|
{| contraband, thing, or testimony obtained as a result of this

|| illegal arrest, illegal search, illegal seizure, and all |
| subsequent investigation, the fruits of knowledge of which were

| the results of said illegal actions of the police; and for such

relief as this Honorable Court may deem mete and just

Respectfully submitted,

| CHARLES W. @OYLE
| Attorney for Defendant

' FRANKLIN, MORAN & BOYLE
852 Gordon Street, S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30310
(404) 752-5757

Ann a ion A A TN EL $A ' surg FRR a 4 AFA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

THE STATE :

| VS :

| BEN WRIGHT, . INDICTMENT No. A 77) TY

| Defendant

STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF

I ‘8S M ON 8 8

The search warrant is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

The search warrant concerns a concerned citizen who stated that

Ben Wright was selling cocaine in his house. The officer did

with a number of other police officers with shotguns and found

approximately one ounce of marijuana and some money which they

"support of the search warrant. There was no verification that

there was any cocaine trafficking taking place.

Respectfully submitted,

(Uw ZL
CHARLES W. BLA

ie 7 . FRANKLIN, MORAN & BOYLE

1 852 Gordon Street S.W.
il i re

| HT Tet 3o310 2121 22: 109
|
1]

|| nothing to verify the information and broke into Ben Wright’s home|

STATE OF GEORGIA
FULTON COUNTY
CALENDAR NOTICE

YOU MUST BE PRESENT AND MAY BE REPRE-

SENTED BY A LAWYER. IF YOU ARE FREE ON

APPEARANCE BOND AND FAIL TO APPEAR, YOUR

BOND WILL BE SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE AND A

WARRANT MAY ISSUE FOR YOUR RE-ARREST. STATE VS.

WRIGHTe BEN

IN ; DICTMENT NO A99174 141

A RED TO:
THIS CASE IS SET UPON A DEFENDANT 8 REQUIRED 10

(1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (572 2
YOUR BONDSMAN. AND THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

JLEA AND ARRAI stiri 5, 1988 OF ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS:
uss [J (2) MAINTAIN CONTINUING COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR LAWYER,

Cron 30 AM , FULTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE, IF YOU HAVE ONE:

ONORABLE (3) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (572 - 3107)
LUTHER ALYERSON OF THE NAME OF YOUR LAWYER:

JUDGE, FULTON SUPERIOR COURT, CRIMINAL (4) BE PRESENT WITH YOUR LAWYER AT THE TIME AND PLACE
DIVISION INDICATED ON THIS NOTICE;

(5) BE AWARE THAT FAILURE TO APPEAR WITH YOUR LAWYER
THIS 18 DAY OF JULYe 1988 ON THE DATE SET MAY RESULT IN YOUR BEING FOUND IN

CONTEMPT OF COURT;

= BARBARA J. PRICE (6) NOTIFY THE COURT IMMEDIATELY IF IT SHOULD APPEAR THAT
CLERK OF SUPERIOR'COURT HE UPON TRIAL OR ARRAIGNMENT YOU MAY NOT BE REPRESENTED

ADDRESSEE: ; Se BY A LAWYER:
2% (7) BRING THIS NOTICE TO COURT ON THE REQUIRED DATE.

A99174—A

BORSUKg LYNNE -¥ em
PUBLIC DEFENDER a

L > A ' " ue aa ine ipo La » mew we ’

A COPY OF THIS NOTICE IS PERMANENTLY RETAINED IN YOUR CASE FILE

|
1

STATE OF GEORGIA YOU MUST BE PRESENT AND MAY BE REPRE-

FULTON COUNTY SENTED BY A LAWYER. IF YOU ARE FREE ON

CALENDAR NOTICE APPEARANCE BOND AND FAIL TO APPEAR, YOUR
BOND WILL BE SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE AND A

STATE VS WARRANT MAY ISSUE FOR YOUR RE-ARREST.
* WRIGHT9 BEN

INDICTMENT NO. A9917%4 140

DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO:

THIS CASE IS SET UPON A (1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION ea

YOUR BONDSMAN. AND THE UNITED STATES POSTAL VI

FLEA AND APRA1GNMEN] 5 198 8 OF ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS:

AUG [)
AT _ FULTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE. @ SNA Done COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR LAWYER.

BEFORE THE HONORABLE (3) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (572 - 3107)

OF THE NAME OF YOUR LAWYER:

LUTHER .ALVERSON COURT, CRIMINAL (4) BE PRESENT WITH YOUR LAWYER AT THE TIME AND PLACE

DIVISION INDICATED ON THIS NOTICE:

(5) BE AWARE THAT FAILURE TO APPEAR WITH YOUR LAWYER

HS 18 DAY OF JULYe 1988 ON THE DATE SET MAY RESULT IN YOUR BEING FOUND IN
CONTEMPT OF COURT;

BARBARA J. PRICE (6) NOTIFY THE COURT IMMEDIATELY IF IT SHOULD APPEAR THAT

r CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT = UPON bias x ARRAIGNMENT YOU MAY NOT BE REPRESENTED

BY A LAWYER:

ADDRESSES: () BRING THIS NOTICE TO COURT ON THE REQUIRED DATE.

A99174-D-0

WRIGHT 9- BEN

259 RICHARDSON ST. #210

ATLANTA. 6A

A COPY OF THIS NOTICE IS PERMANENTLY RETAINED IN YOUR CASE FILE

STATE OF GEORGIA
FULTON COUNTY
CALENDAR NOTICE

STATE VS. WRIGHT BEN INDICTMENT NO. 299174 64

THIS CASE IS SET UPON A

PLEA AND ARRAIGNMENT
CALENDAR FOR JULY 8, 1988
AT 930AM FULTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE,
BEFORE THE HONORABLE

LUTHER ALVERSON
JUDGE, FULTON SUPERIOR COURT, CRIMINAL

DIVISION

BARBARA J. PRICE

CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT

ADDRESSEE:

A99174-D-0
WRIGHTs BEN rt,
259 RICHARDSON ST #210
ATLANTAs GA

YOU MUST BE PRESENT AND MAY BE REPRE-

SENTED BY A LAWYER. IF YOU ARE FREE ON

APPEARANCE BOND AND FAIL TO APPEAR, YOUR

BOND WILL BE SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE AND A

WARRANT MAY ISSUE FOR YOUR RE-ARREST.

DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO:

(1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (572 -3107),
YOUR BONDSMAN. AND THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
OF ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS:

(2) MAINTAIN CONTINUING COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR LAWYER,
IF YOU HAVE ONE:

(3) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (572 - 3107)
OF THE NAME OF YOUR LAWYER:

(4) BE PRESENT WITH YOUR LAWYER AT THE TIME AND PLACE
INDICATED ON THIS NOTICE:

(5) BE AWARE THAT FAILURE TO APPEAR WITH YOUR LAWYER
ON THE DATE SET MAY RESULT IN YOUR BEING FOUND IN
CONTEMPT OF COURT:

(6) NOTIFY THE COURT IMMEDIATELY IF IT SHOULD APPEAR THAT
UPON TRIAL OR ARRAIGNMENT YOU MAY NOT BE REPRESENTED
BY A LAWYER:

(7) BRING THIS NOTICE TO COURT ON THE REQUIRED DATE.

A COPY OF THIS NOTICE IS PERMANENTLY RETAINED IN YOUR CASE FILE

STATE OF GEORGIA
FULTON COUNTY
CALENDAR NOTICE

STATE VS. WRIGHTs BEN

INDICTMENT NO. 142
A99174

THIS CASE IS SET UPON A

ARRAIGNMENT
kbd NEx AUGUST 55 1988 1
AT , FULTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE,
BEFORE THE HONORABLE

JoBIE EB. Ak LEBABE counr. criminaL
DIVISION
THIS DAY OF

18 JULYs 1988

BARBARA J. PRICE

- CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT

ADDRESSEE:

A99124-B
ATLANTIC, BONDING COD
227 PEACHTREE ST SMW STE 1
ATLANTA GA 30303 :

YOU MUST BE PRESENT AND MAY BE REPRE-

SENTED BY A LAWYER. IF YOU ARE FREE ON

APPEARANCE BOND AND FAIL TO APPEAR, YOUR

BOND WILL BE SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE AND A

WARRANT MAY ISSUE FOR YOUR RE-ARREST.

DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO:

(1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (572 -3107).
YOUR BONDSMAN. AND THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

OF ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS:

(2) MAINTAIN CONTINUING COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR LAWYER,

IF YOU HAVE ONE:

(3) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (S72 - 3107)

OF THE NAME OF YOUR LAWYER:

(4) BE PRESENT WITH YOUR LAWYER AT THE TIME AND PLACE

INDICATED ON THIS NOTICE:

(5) BE AWARE THAT FAILURE TO APPEAR WITH YOUR LAWYER
ON THE DATE SET MAY RESULT IN YOUR BEING FOUND IN

CONTEMPT OF COURT:

(6) NOTIFY THE COURT IMMEDIATELY IF IT SHOULD APPEAR THAT
UPON TRIAL OR ARRAIGNMENT YOU MAY NOT BE REPRESENTED

BY A LAWYER:

(7) BRING THIS NOTICE TO COURT ON THE REQUIRED DATE.

A COPY OF THIS NOTICE 1S PERMANENTLY RETAINED IN YOUR CASE FILE

STATE OF GEORGIA
FULTON COUNTY
CALENDAR NOTICE

YOU MUST BE PRESENT AND MAY BE REPRE-

SENTED BY A LAWYER. IF YOU ARE FREE ON

APPEARANCE BOND AND FAIL TO APPEAR, YOUR

BOND WILL BE SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE AND A

ARRANT MAY ISSUE FOR Y R -ARREST.

STATEVS. LRI1GHTs BEN w S OUR RE-ARBES
INDICTMENT NO. A9917& 141

THIS CASE IS SET UPON A
DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO:

(1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (572 -3107),

RRA YOUR BONDSMAN. AND THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

JLE A AND A IGNMENT OF ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS:

LENDAR FOR AUGUST Ses 1988 2) MAINTAIN CONTINUING COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR R AT 30AM + FULTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 8 MANTA CONTIN UNCATION WITH YOUR LAWYER:

BEFORE THE HONORABLE (3) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (572 - 3107)

LUTHER ALVYERSO N OF THE NAME OF YOUR LAWYER:

JUDGE, FULTON SUPERIOR COURT, CRIMINAL (4) BE PRESENT WITH YOUR LAWYER AT THE TIME AND PLACE

DIVISION INDICATED ON THIS NOTICE:

(5) BE AWARE THAT FAILURE TO APPEAR WITH YOUR LAWYER

THiS 18 DAY OF JULYe 1988 ON THE DATE SET MAY RESULT IN YOUR BEING FOUND IN
CONTEMPT OF COURT;

BARBARA J. PRICE (6) NOTIFY THE COURT IMMEDIATELY IF IT SHOULD APPEAR THAT
- CLERK OF SUPERIOR'COURT Coa UPON TRIAL OR ARRAIGNMENT YOU MAY NOT BE REPRESENTED

(7) BRING THIS NOTICE TO COURT ON THE REQUIRED DATE.

A Y
a

an
s

ng, La
)

ha
d

ha
lt

A
L

B
a

BORSUKs LYNNE'Y
PUBLIC DEFENDER

L
- 2 RT TL I WS a veh agi *

A COPY OF THIS NOTICE iS PERMANENTLY RETAINED IN YOUR CASE FILE

(as |

SIME SEOnCA YOU MUST BE PRESENT AND MAY BE REPRE-
SENTED BY A LAWYER. IF YOU ARE FREE ON

CALENDAR NOTICE APPEARANCE BOND AND FAIL TO APPEAR, YOUR
BOND WILL BE SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE AND A
WARRANT MAY ISSUE FOR YOUR RE-ARREST.

STATE VS. WRIGHT 9 BEN

INDICTMENT NO. A9917% 140

DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO:

(1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (572 -3107).

THIS CASE IS SET UPON A

PLE A AND ARRA IGNMENT YOUR BONDSMAN, AND THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

CALENDAR FOR AUGUST Sy 1988 OF ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS:

(2) MAINTAIN CONTINUING COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR LAWYER,
AT 930AM ° FULTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE, IF YOU HAVE ONE:

BEFORE THE HONORABLE (3) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION (572 - 3107)

LUTHER ALY ERS ON OF THE NAME OF YOUR LAWYER:

JUDGE, FULTON SUPERIOR COURT, CRIMINAL (4) BE PRESENT WITH YOUR LAWYER AT THE TIME AND PLACE

DIVISION INDICATED ON THIS NOTICE:

THIS DAY OF (5) BE AWARE THAT FAILURE TO APPEAR WITH YOUR LAWYER

18 JULYe 1988 ON THE DATE SET MAY RESULT IN YOUR BEING FOUND IN
CONTEMPT OF COURT;

BARBARA J. PRICE (6) NOTIFY THE COURT IMMEDIATELY IF IT SHOULD APPEAR THAT

~ CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT 1 UPON TRIAL OR ARRAIGNMENT YOU MAY NOT BE REPRESENTED

ADDRESSEE: BY A LAWYER:

(7) BRING THIS NOTICE TO COURT ON THE REQUIRED DATE.

A99174-D-0

WRIGHT y- BEN :

259 RICHARDSON ST #210

ATLANTAy GA

e A COPY OF THIS NOTICE IS PERMANENTLY RETAINED IN YOUR CASE FILE

—— Ant SLITS AAA ATE CSN . Rr CT fo SOL Bes i ape

FINAL DISPOSITION ) SC-6

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY FINAL DISPOSITION

STATE OF GEORGIA CRIMINAL ACTION NO. - G5) F#

VS. OFFENSE($)
£ 7 gg L.A.

July-August TERM, 19 88

- X PLEA: O VERDICT: O OTHER DISPOSITION
S NEGOTIATE O JURY O GUILTY ON O NOLLE PROSEQUI ORDER ON
Y GUILTYONCOUNT(S) OO NON-JURY COUNT(S) COUNT(S)
2 'D NOLO CONTENDERE ON O NOT GUILTY ON O DEAD DOCKET ORDER ON

COUNT(S) COUNT(S) COUNT(S)
O TO LESSER INCLUDED O GUILTY OF INCLUDED

OFFENSE(S) OFFENSE(S) OF
ON COUNT(S) (SEE SEPARATE ORDER)

ON COUNT(S)

DO DEFENDANT WAS ADVISED OF HIS/HER RIGHT TO HAVE THIS SENTENCE REVIEWED BY THE SUPERIOR COURTS SENTENCE REVIEW PANEL.

FELONY SENTENCE O MISDEMEANOR SENTENCE

WHEREAS, the above-named defendant has been fi iy i above- stated offense, WHEREUPON, it is ordered and adjudged by the Court that: The said defendant is hereby

sentenced to confinement for a period of

in the State Penal System or such other institution as the Commissioner of the State Department of Corrections or Court may direct. to be computed as provided by law.
HOWEVER, it is further ordered by the Court

K 1) THAT the above sentence may be served on probation

0 2) THAT upon service of of the above e the r inder of may be served
on probation PROVIDED that the said defendant complies with the following general and other conditions herein imposed by the Court as a part of this sentence.

O GENERAL CONDITIONS OF PROBATION
endant. having been granted the privilege of serving all or part of the above-stated sentence on probation, hereby is sentenced to the following general conditions
tion:

1) Do not violate the criminal laws of any governmental unit.

2) Avoid injurious and vicious habits - especially alcoholic intoxication and narcotics and other dangerous drugs unless prescribed lawfully.
3) Avoid persons or places of disreputable or harmful character.
4) Report to the Probation-Parole Supervisor as directed and permit such Supervisor to visit him (her) at home or elsewhere.
5) Work faithfully at suitable employment insofar as may be possible.

6) Do not change his (her) present place of abode. move outside the jurisdicton of the Court. or leave the State for any period of time without prior permission of the
Probation Supervisor.

7) Support his (her) legal dependants to the best of his (her) ability.

8) Probationer shall. from time to time upon oral or written request by any Probati Officer, produce a breath, urine, and/or blood specimen for analysis for the
possible presence of a substance prohibited or controlled by any law of the State of Georgia or of the United States.

OTHER CONDITIONS OF PAROLE

£5 IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant pay a fine in the amount of Lo) : plus $50 or 10%. whichever is less pursuant to O.C.G.A.
15-21-70. and pay restitution in the amount of Probation Fee, Court Costs_ Attorney's Fees.

9
M

N Payments are:

w
y

Oo
o

o
o
o

ws IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER of the Court. and the defendant is hereby advised that the Court may. at any time. revoke any conditions of this probation and/or discharge the
2 defendant from probation. The probationer shall be subject to arrest fgr violation of any condition of probation herein granted. If such probation is revoked. the Court may order the
© of the which was originally imposed or any portiof thereof in the mapper provided by law after deducting therefrom the amount of time the defendant has served on

| probation.

QM 7 Attorney at Law, Fulton County, by

The defendant was represented by the Honorable

(Employment) (Appointment)

2 CourtReporer Mary McLelland )
2 -

£ So ordered this__oth day of August 19 88 é \e a
Luther Alverson Judge, Fulton Superior Court

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

£ This is to certify that a true and correct copy of this Sentence of Probation hag been delivered in person t defendant and he/she instructed regarding the conditions
$B asset forth above. = : ~
i

™ SS sy gaat va
ae Probation Officer

Copy resend and instructions regarding condigions acknowledge. 2) S) Va
This ce dav of TIE 19 bi & :

White - Clerk Goldenrod - Defendant Pink - Probation Office BUUK i] G 0 PRE 4 97 ale 16 3 B ubuiooet

ASA YJ pag A <0
Upon motion of Asst. Dist. Atty. 4 blriskd, a bm-65-ar-MCA-5/12/88

bm-32

the within Indictment Is ordered placed upon the dead

docket and the surety Is relieved of liability In this

case. This the 3S, a Ra 190d >
&

AY 1 Cds WITNESSES: Clerk's No. . . .. A- . a 7 1 LR JUDGE, S.C., A.J.C.

i
AUG 16 1988 BPS

FULTON SUPERIOR COURT L. T. Burkett
¥ R.C. Love

R.E. Taylor E a. Dik
THE STATE

Vs.
CRIME LAB: v
George J. Fontis BEN. WRIGHT. -and- STANLEY - WRIGHT kien e 88-10900 VIOLATION GEORGIA CONTROLLED

SUBSTANCES ‘ACT Dl BN AER Pr SR GR A ER ATR EE

D
e
f
e
n
d
a
n
t

RO
OK
1
1
6
0

PA
SE

4
5
9

JO
/ Di

st
ri
ct

to
rn

De
fe

nd
an

t'
s

At
to

rn
ey

fu
ll

pa
ne

fo
rm
al

ar
ra

ig
nm

en
t

an
d

pl
ea

ds
.

wa
iv

co
py

in
di
ct
me
nt
s,

lis
t

wi
tn
es
se
s,

STATE OF GEGRGIA, COUNTY OF FULTON.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAID COUNTY.

THE GRAND JURORS selected, chosen and sworn for the County of Fulton, to-wit:

Paul G. Scott, Foreman
Sara Singley, Asst. Foreman N

’ Goantdeiiih
Patricia Moyle, Asst. Secretary

Ruth G. Alessi
Nancy B. Bradley
Johnnie R. Brown
Suddie L. Brown [

E
S

RN
R
N

o
oo

o
o

Ra. ke P™A
10. T. Doyle Hackney
11. Rosella Lee Harden
12. William J. Knuckles
13. Lynda Land

in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charge and accuse

Craig L. Lawson
Frankie McDowell
Patricia Nowlan
Lawrence G. Obenchain

Vance C. Powers
Larry V. Queen
Louise E. Rollins

Selma Schultz
Louise P. Shirley
warren S. Whatley, Jr.

Ira Curry, lst. Alt.
Cheryl A. Magee, 2nd Alt.

BEN WRIGHT and STANLEY WRIGHT

with the offense of: —

VIOLATION GEORGIA CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT

for that said accused, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on the

27th day of

April 19 88
’

did unlawfully possess and have under their control less than one

ounce of Marijuana; said possession being with intent to distribute

said Marijuana; -

contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.
500 : “a 1)

LEWIS R. SLATON, isi L160 AGE 435
Special Presentment.

PRINT, DO NOT WRITE

Tid I, S00 =

= 41 Bond § & 000 + SO per sor. Ande. 4 -30-84

: Trist Dasa S=12-~ §§ Hour [630

Pima S TIN LEY = Wa 6 HT
(Furst) Be elle eet)

259 RicHarPSon RD. S.\J/.

Security NOAA THE SST LonONG CoO.

Address

CTY

B cmon DUEZAT avauers Tope of Song

fomion no QO22A°H _ pmeumes
Eas Return Cash To

; Oo 22. = : Citation No “eo Amount § Err

CitstionNe C022 40 & Amoums
Dete of Final Disposition T [pes of Forteture

Fine 8 —_—

FILEDINO £
oo

GEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY JUN Pits
UX] Know All Men by these Presents: gr iiitaion jd

THAT WE STewmesy WR i6rT— SULTON COUNTY GEORGIA <=
PRINCIPAL, and LOA TWEENS TT

RBononw &¢ Ceo - SECURITIES. are held
and firmly bound unto the City of Atlants (but only if 8 judge of the Municipel Court of Atisnts be the Court of inquiry)
and unto His Excellencyd oe Franc Hann. Governor of The
State of Georgia, and his successors in office, in the penal sum of. § Ge, OS © —onu for the

true payment whereof we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly

by these presents.
; ; 4-30-11

Signed with our hands, sealed with our seals, and dated

19.

|
2
a
a
0
r

‘0
%

an
os

VI
HV

21
0

9 4
NaI

Hi
ll

THE CONDITIONS OF THE ABOVE OBLIGATION ARE SUCH, that if above bound STancey, \Waig ot ;
(the “A d’’) shall personally be and appear before a

Court of Inquiry (which may include a Judge of the Municipal Court of Atlanta) to be convened at SENET A CGC
“Sc Pn

name of court or judge) on S—-|2-

— (time of scheduled appeerance) from day to day, and Term to Term, there to determine if the Accused

shall be committed, and not depart therefrom without leave of that Court, then this bond insofar as the cbligee,

the City of Atlanta, is concerned, shall be void, eise to remain in full torce and virtue; and if the Court of inquiry not

be a Judge of the Municipe! Court of Atlanta and if the Accused not depart the Court-of Inquiry without leave of .

that Court, or if the Accused be by any Court of inquiry committed for triet of an offense. against the pens! ews .-

of the State of Georgia and if the Accused shall personaly be and appeas st the next.(Superior Count of Fulton:

County), (Superior -Court of DeKalb County), (Criminsl Court of Fulton. County) (State Court of DeKalb County)

(Clayton County Superior Court and Clayton County Stats Court) to be held on S=12-8% 4:30 f/x from day

nan! WE ID i BH eT of_PoSS F/a Cow. Fe Ne

M f Je 0%s DRUG QEUTETTS [oa MMT, Poss mT OW 7 MoT Blu
AY

with which he stands charged, and shall not depart thence without the leave of said Court, then the 5... obligation
shall be null and void, else to remain in full force and virtue.

in the event that the Court of Inquiry shall bind the Accused over for appearance before the Superior Court

of Fulton County, Superior Court of DeKalb County, Criminal Court of Fulton County, State Court of DeKalb County,

Superior Court of Clayton County, State Court of Clayton County, and in so doing shall reduce the bsil under which

the Accused is bound over to sn amount less than the penal sum set forth above, then the Principal and Securities.

named herein shall be obligated to the Governor of the State of Georgie only in the reduced amount. .

And the better to secure the payment of this bond, in the event of forfeiture, we each, for ourselves and:

families, and as the head of our respective families renounce and waive all right and benefit of the homestead

snd exemption laws of the State, whether the same be guaranteed by constitutional or legisiative provisions

providing for homestead and exemptions to the people of-Georgia.

BOND APPROVED: 22103 - 202

4 Sry = (eb
4 Principal U U

: pe GL
Security CGA

PRINT, DO NOT WRIIE -
| 500 :

, Bona s_DAR + SO ewbo. ude “ 4

= Pr Zs weg Ad Cy
VA [Crem] bf u 3 oy

gE |

agrons__2S9 Re~xhnedsu/ sr #72 Cn. ule

Security LTT Carlee BD

S
N
O
I
L
O
I
Y
Y
O
D

NY
IU
NG

VI
NY
LY

AL
D

YI
LN
ID

NO
II
NI
L3
0

TV
IY
1I
Yd

Judge

FILED IN OFFICE

88
GEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY JU v

omens bt Jor
Muay

DEPUTY CLERK SUPERIOR COURT
THAT we Teal Wecoht

PRINCIPAL, and

SECURITIES ase heid:

and firmly bound unto the City of Atianta (but only if a j of the Municipal Court of Atlanta be the Court of inquiry)

and unto His rans Governor of The
State of Georgie, and his successors in office, in the pensl sum of § Zdd FS for the

true payment whereof we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly

by these presents. /

Signed with our hands, sealed with our seals, and dated %, 22/kR
19.

THE CONDITIONS OF THE ABOVE OBLIGATION ARE SUCH, that if above bound

(the Accused’) shall pers

Court of Inquiry (which may include 8 Judge of the Municipal Court of Atlanta) to be convened at ‘

name of court or judge) on = 28/2 RY 'Fpon

(time of scheduled appearance) from day to day, and Term to Term, there to determine if the Accused

shall be committed, and not depart therefrom without leave of that Court, then this bond insofar as the abligee,

the City of Atlanta, is concerned, shall be void, else to remain in full torce and virtue; and if the Court of inquiry not

be a Judge of the Municipal Court of Atlanta and if the Accused not depart the Court of Inquiry without leave of

that Court, or if the Accused be by any Court of Inquiry committed for trial of an offense against the penal lewe

of the State of Georgia and if the Accused shall personally be and appear at the next {Superior Coust of Fulton

County), (Superior Court of DeKalb County), (Criminal Court of Fulton County) (S] of DeKalb County).

(Clayton County Superior Court and Clayton County Stats-Court) to be held on Fo day
e offense

253 £ jar

with which he stands charged, and’shall not depart thence without the leave of said Court, then the a ion <a AY Fe

shall be null and void, eise to remain in full force and virtue. Ne 7a

in the event that the Court of Inquiry shall bind the A d over for app before the Superior Court

of Fulton County, Superior Court of DeKalb County, Criminal Court of Fulton County, State Court of DeKalb County,

Superior Court of Clayton County, State Court of Clayton County, and in so doing shall reduce the bail under which

the Accused is bound over to an amount less than the penal sum set forth above, then the Principal and Securities

named herein shall be obligated to the Governor of the State of Georgia only in the reduced amount.

And the better to secure the payment of this bond, in the event of forfeiture, we each, for ourselves and

families, and as the head of our respective families renounce and waive all right and benefit of the homestead

and exemption laws of the State, whether the same be guaranteed by constitutional or lsgisistive provisions

providing for homestead and exemptions to the people of Georgia.

BOND APPROVED: 3600 2105 me 261

Dkede Fo 2 FR

Principal

. STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNTY OF FULTON

1 Valerie Wright Deputy Clerk of

the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, do hereby certify

that the within and foregoing is a true and correct copy of

. Proceedings (Filed Sept. 13, 1989
. Notice Of Apprearnace
. Motion to Suppress

. Motion For Discovery :

. Demand For Copies .(Filed July 20, 1988)
Motion to Suppress (Filed Juyl 20, 1988)
Defendant's Motion To Suppress °
Final Disposition
Calendar Notice

Criminal Bond

Indictment

H
O

W
V
W
O
E
O
N
O
U

N
W
N

—

.
S
E
A
R
S

U
R
E

R
l

R
R

a
t
s

—

- all of which appears of file and record in this Office.

Given under my hand and seal of Office.

This the 26th day of April{ 1991

wea (J iL
“DEPUTY CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT
FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA

Ad WE 8 Ar Ly ; Jes 90 W J SEE TN AE

koi F.ored

Supreme Court of Af lorida

No. 73,261

FRANK A. WALLS,

Appellant,

VE.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

[April 11, 1991]

KOGAN, J.

Frank A, Walls appeals from a judgment and sentence of

death. We have jurisdiction. Art. Vv, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

During the early morning hours of July 22, 1987, a

neighbor heard loud noises coming from the mobile home of the

victims, Edward Alger and Ann Peterson. When Alger failed to

| BS RIN NT Shodie dr vie Sid Bol dees

report for duty at the air force base his superior officer

Sergeant Calloway went to Alger's home. The body of a nude

female was discovered in the front bedroom. ' Calloway left

immediately to telephone police.

When investigators arrived, they found Peterson lying face

down on the floor of the front bedroom. She had been shot twice

in the head. Alger's nude body was found on the floor of the

second bedroom. His feet were tied with a curtain cord and a

piece of the same cord was tied to his left wrist. Alger had

been shot three times and his throat was cut.

A warrant was obtained to search the mobile home where

Walls lived with his roommate. The warrant was issued based

primarily on information given to the investigators by Walls'

former roommate, who lived in the mobile home adjacent to that of

the victims. A number of items were seized during the search

that were linked to the crime scene.

Following his arrest, Walls gave a statement to the

investigators detailing his involvement in the murders. Walls

was charged with ten offenses. Some of these charges were

dismissed or reduced to lesser offenses following Walls' motion

for judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the trial.

During pretrial detention, a correctional EALi0AF named

Vickie Beck was asked to conduct e surveillance of Walls, because

he was suspected in other murders. Beck approached Walls and

assured him that anything he Lod her would remain confidential.

She insisted that Walls not tell his attorney. As a result of

HER LL “91 di ly YLRD 99d Bl BSE ] P.4.24

her observations, Beck took detailed notes of Walls' statements

and behavior, Later, these notes were given to the state and its

examining psychiatrists,

Walle pleaded not guilty and filed several pretrial

motions, including a motion to determine his competency to stand

trial. Five experts testified, three stating Walls was

incompetent and two finding he Vas competent. The Latter two

‘were the only ones who had relied on Beck's notes in evaluating

Walls, The trial judge agreed with these two experts and held

that Walls was competent to stand trial.

The jury found Walls guilty of all charges submitted. On

the murder vounts Walls was found guilty of felony murder for the

death of Alger and guilty of premeditated and felony murder for

the death of Peterson. After hearing the evidence in mitigation

the jury recommended a life sentence for the death of Alger and a

sentence of death for the murder of Peterson. The trial court

complied with the jury's recommendations.

In this appeal, Walls raises several issues, one of which

ig dispositive of ths case. Walls argues that Beck's activities

during his pretrial detention violated his constitutional rights.

We agree that it violated the due process provision of the

Florida Constitution, article I, section 9,

As a matter of Florida law, we believe the legal rigors

imposed by due process come into play when a psychiatric

evaluation that may be used in any manner against the accused is

conducted in whole or in part by means of an illegal subterfuge.

"3 do Livy ‘od Ta oY, 5 SL Le J YT [43 ery 1 SEE

: : = : p FH. Se 2d

Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. This includes instances when a third-

party employing such a gubtertige elfectively is serving as

information gatherer for medical oF psychological professionals

who later will make such evaluations. Id.

This is a conclusion required by precedent. The term "due

process" embodies a fundamental conception of fa ivhess that

derives ultimately from the natural rights of all individuals.

Scull v. Stata, 569 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 1990). "Fairnesa" is nearly

the equivalent of the concept of "good faith," which imposes a

standard of conduct requiring both fairness and honesty.

Munidinal mond & Mort : Aishopnts. Har) Drai

Digt., 154 Fla. 246, 17 So.2d 226 (1944). As we stated in

Haliburton v. State, 514 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 1987), "'due process

requires fairness, integrity, and honor in the operation of the

criminal justice system, and in its treatment of tha citizen's

cardinal constitutional protections.'" Id, at 1090 (quoting

Moran vv. Burhine, 475 U.8, 412, 467, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 1165 (1986)

(Stevens, J., dissenting)).

By any stretch of the imagination, the subterfuge used

against Walls in this instance fails either to be fair or honest.

Thus, since the subterfuge led to information later used against

Walls, due process is implicated and the courts are required to

conduct an intensive scrutiny of the police conduct in question.

In a similar context, the United States Supreme Court has

noted that

HEE Ld di ake lio vikEL Sd Bol sen P.5/24
L] —

certain interrogation techniques, either in
isolation or as applied to the unique
characteristics of a particular suspect, are so
offensive to a civilized system of justice that
they must be condemned under the Due Process
Clause . . .

Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 109 (1985). The Court then noted

that "ours is an ac¢cusatorial and not an inquisitorial system."

Id. at 110 (quoting Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 541

(1961)). It concluded that the admissibility of confessions

obtained by ruse does not rest merely on whether those

i Rather, due process requires an confessions were voluntary.

examination of the particular methods used to extract the

confession, even if that confession was voluntary in‘the

strictest sense of the term.

In the recent case of Illinois v., Perkins, 110 S.Ct. 2394

(1990), Justice Brennan Res elaborated on the standards discussed

above. The Perkins Court confronted a situation in which an

undercover officer posed as an inmate and thereby extracted a

confession from another inmate. The majority held that Miranda

v.. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was no bar to the admissibility

of the confession because it had not been coerced. Perkins, 110

S.Ct. at 2399, However, Justice Brennan noted that, on remand,

the court below still would be required to consider whether the

> Voluntariness, of course, involves consideration of the

standards announced in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Hk 11 dl Lui 1d WRC 994 Bi3l BSEes

Miller case barred the confession on due process grounds. Id. at

2400-01. Justice Brennan stated:

The deliberate use of deception and
manipulation by the police appears to be
incompatible "with a system that presumes
innocence and assures that a conviction will not
be secured by inquisitorial means. . . ."

Id. at 2400 (quoting Miller, 474 U.S. at 116)).

We find that the due process provision of the Florida

Constitution embodies the principles of fundamental fairness

alaborated by Justice Brennan in Perkins. Art. i... 89, Fla.

Const. Due process contemplates that the police and other state

agents act in an accusatorial, not an inquisitorial, manner.

Gross deception Shen as a means of evading constitutional rights

has no place in such a system.

Yet gross deception is precisely what led to the

statements made by Walls while in custody. Here we find the

surreptitious, admittedly illegal gathering of information later

transmitted to those conducting psychiatric evaluations of rhs

accused. In this case, a state agent befriended Walls,

fraudulently encouraged him to speak freely "in confidence" to

her, failed to warn him that the information she obtained later

would be used against him in court, and discouraged him from

telling his attorney of her activities. Later, these illegally

obtained statements formed a substantial part of the basis for

expert statements on which the trial court directly relied in

finding Walls competent to stand trial.

The state conceded at trial that this trickery violated

Magsiah v. United Stateg, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), and Malone v.

State, 390 So.2d 338 (Fla. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1034

(1981); and in this assessment, we must wholeheartedly agree.’

Here, as in Malone, we are confronted with a state-sponsored

subterfuge designed in part to trap Walls and circumvent the

clear requirements of the Constitution. See id. at 340. Thus,

the trial court properly concluded and the state conceded that

none of the information obtained by Beck could be used against

walls in the state's case at trial or in the penalty phase.

Ag a matter of Florida law, however, we believe the trial

court erred in not excluding Beck's information from al) aspects

of trial. We do not agree with the state's argument that it now

may have the advantage of Beck's subterfuge on matters relating

to Walls' competence to stand trial. The clear requirements of
To

2 at trial, the state made the following comments:

The State is prepared to stipulate that the
statements given to Miss Beck by Walls were
custodial, they were given without the advice by
Mrs. [sic] Beck to Mr. Walls of his Miranda
rights, and that they were not admissible for
purposes of proving guilt, they are not
admissible in any regard in the State's case in
chief.

Then the State's position is, consistent
with the case law that I think we have here,
that it is admissible as are [sic] other
matters; for example, for use of impeachment
should the defendant take the stand, and for use
in making a determination as to mental state,
such as competency hearing [sic].

J ar |

Heme dd “od See wll Heel bil Flo F.9-24 ‘ wr

article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution have been

violated, as well as this Court's prior holding in Malone.

When the state employs an illegal subterfuge, the Florida

Constitution forbids it from using the fruits of that subterfuge

for any purpose that will work to the detriment of the defense's

case, including determination of competence or insanity. Any

other conclusion would encourage the use of such subterfuges and

run against every basic conception of fairness erbodied within

article I, section 9 of our Constitution. The procedure employed

by the police in this instance flouted these standards and

directly resulted in a court ruling on the competency issue that

is now tainted by the illegal subterfuge. The court order and

all that followed it thus cannot be allowed to stand under the

Florida Constitution, Art. I, 8 9, Pla. Const. ss

We also believe that the police conduct in this instance

constituted an illegal interference with the attorney-client

relationship in violation of our opinion in Haliburton, which

itself rested entirely on article I, section 9 of the Florida

Constitution. Haliburton, 514 So.2d at 1090. Although

| Haliburton dealt with the state's deliberate failure to tell the

accused of his attorney's communications, the issues presented by

this case are sufficiently similar to warrant a similar result.

Here, a state agent fraudulently interfered with the attorney-

client relationship through deception aimed at preventing the

accused from revealing information that would have alerted his

attorney to the state's fraudulent activities. We believe the

AFR 11 791 10:20 YLRC 904 651 USE6 F. 10.24

following statement from Haliburton thus is equally applicable to

the present case:

"[P]Jolice interference in the attorney-client
relationship is the type of governmental
misconduct on a matter of central importance to
the administration of justice that the Due
Process Clause prohibits." :

Haliburton, 514 So.2d at 1090 (quoting Buxbine, 475 U.S. at 467,

106 S.Ct. at 1165 (Stevens, 1. dissenting)). Thus, the state's

actions here constituted an unconstitutional interference with

the attorney-client relationship, in violation of article I,

section 9 of the Florida Constitution. Id, (relying on art. I, 8

9, Fla. Const.).

We hasten to distinguish this case from other cases in

which police surveillance does not involve a ruse or subterfuge.

The state and its agents tlearly are entitled to watch a person

in custody and make notes of that person's voluntary or

spontaneous behavior or comments. Psychiatric evaluations

conducted in good faith and with proper authorization also

clearly are an acceptable means for the state to employ,

especially when competency or sanity may be in issue. Nothing

prohibits the state from good-faith efforts to determine whether

the defense's allegation of incompetency or insanity is genuine

or spurious.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the

court below and remand for new trial on all issues. On remand,

any further psychiatric or psychological evaluations conducted on

walls shall not rely to any degree, directly or indirectly, on

ER IR H.llocd

the information obtained by Beck. Thus, to eliminate the taint,

any such evaluations shall not be conducted by the experts who

previously received the information taken as a result of the

police subterfuge.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, Cody and BARKETT, Jay QOQncur.,

GRIMES, J., concurs in result only.
McDONALD, J., dissents with an opinion, in which OVERTON, J.,
concurs.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
FILED, DETERMINED.

3 All other issues raised by the parties are rendered moot by
this opinion and will not be addressed.

wl(= rE

Fa.losad

GRIMES, J., concurring in result only.

Because of the clear violation of Magsiah v. United

States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), I agree that the mental health

experts should not have been permitted to testify after having

been given the correctional officer's notes concerning Walls’

statements and behavior.

HFR LL 91 18:21 VLRC 994 681 8566 P. 13754

McDONALD, J., dissenting.

Because the information obtained by the State was utilized

solely for the purpose of evaluating the defendant's competency,

I cannot join in the conclusion that there was a reversible due

process violation, Had the State's action led to a confession on

the facts of the case or led to the introduction of substantive

evidence, I likely would join in the reversal. I do not believe,

however, that the Tnappropriats gathering of facts surrounding

one's competency equates to a due process violation.

OVERTON, J., concurs.

HEE LL “ol lui] YLRC 94d B21 BSbh P.14/24

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Okaloosa County,

Robert G. Barron, Judge ~ Case No. 87-856 A

Nancy Daniels, Public Defender and W. C. McLain, Assistant Public
Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Appellant

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Mark C. 'Menser,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Appellee

~13- a

Press Summaries
Oral Argument Cases
April 8-~12,-1381

NOTE: The following summaries are drawn from the briefs of
counsel and the lower court judgments filed in the various cases.
They are intended to provide a general idea of the facts and
issues presented. These summaries should not be considered
official court documents. More specific information about the
facts and legal issues can be obtained by examining the briefs
and records filed with the Court, NL

MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1991

Style: State of Fla. v. Mario Albo Lara, No. 73,888

Facts: Lara was convicted of first-degree murder and other
crimes and was sentenced to death. On appeal, the convictions
and sentence were affirmed. On motion for post-conviction
relief, the trial court granted relief as to the death sentence
but denied it as to the convictions. Both parties appeal.

Issues: (1) Whether the court erred in granting postconviction
relief from the death sentence,

(2) Whether the court erred in denying postconviction
relief as to the convictions.

A nS oon

Style: Michael Tyrone Crump v. State of Fla., No. 74,230

Facts: Crump was convicted of first-degree murder and was
sentenced to death. On appeal, he argues that improper evidence
of a separate crime was admitted, that there were various
procedural errors at the trial, and that the death sentence is
invalid.

Issues: (1) Whether the conviction should be affirmed.

(2) Whether the death sentence should be affirmed.

HEF LL “31 ldied WLELC Dud pEl Bobo P.16-24

Style: Clarence James Jones v. State of Fla., No. 74,866

Facts: Jones was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting a
policeman and was sentenced to death. On appeal, he argues that
evidence was improperly admitted and other relevant evidence
excluded; that the court erred in rulings on jury selection; that
the sentencing findings were erroneous; and that the sentence of
death is improper.

Issues: (1) Whether the conviction should be affirmed.

(2) Whether the death sentence should be affirmed.

MEL poe 35 RESO] 07 U0 LS I 1 Le CL SE see BL Noe A Mm A F 17 2 pa
LJ RS

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1991

Style: Alvarez v. Trustees of Tampa City Pension Fund, No. 76,418

Facts: Linda Alvarez sought and the trial court ordered child-
support deductions from the pension benefits of her former
hushand. The pension fund appealed and the district court
reversed, holding that the special law establishing the pension

fund provided that the benefits payable thereunder were not to be
subject to any legal process. The district court found that this

provision prevailed over laws providing for child-support
enforcement through garnishment. Alvarez seeks review.

Issue: Whether statutes authorizing income deduction orders for
child support should prevail over provisions prohibiting legal
process against certain pension benefits.

Style: The Florida Bar v. Alfred §. Wells, No. 74,320

Facts: The Florida Bar brought this action against attorney
Wells alleging professional misconduct. A referee recommended
finding respondent guilty of several counts of misconduct and
recommended that he be suspended for eighteen months. The
Florida Bar seeks review, arguing that Wells should be disbarred.

Issue: Whether the recommended discipline is appropriate.

SA i inde nis i, ls ott

Style: William Christopher v. State of Florida, No. 74,451

Facts: Christopher was convicted of first-degree murder and was
sentenced to death. On appeal, Christopher raises challenges to
the trial court's evidentiary and procedural rulings, the
sentencing findings and the sentence of death.

Issues: (1) Whether the conviction should be affirmed.

(2) Whether the sentence of death should be affirmed.

HEE Ld or J 10 7 SRT I so Hm fe SR LR BR i F.l18-2¢ » on TA il

Style: The Florida Bar, In re Petition of Frankel, No. 76,853

Facts: Florida Bar member Frankel has filed a challenge to the
Florida Bar's use of funds derived from compulsory member dues
for purposes of lobbying the legislature on certain public policy
issues.

Issue: Whether the Court should enjoin the Bar's activities or
grant other relief.

i od Rk BE Pe SI LE Role ST NT Oe TRE ia NR NE F 19-2

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1991

Style: Johnson v. Dugger, No. 73,362; Johnson v. State, No.
74,743.

Facts: Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder and was
sentenced to death. On appeal, the conviction and sentence were
affirmed. Johnson now seeks a writ of habeas corpus and appeals
the deniel of postconviction relief under rule 3.850. He claims
there was inadequate inquiry into his competency to stand trial
and the voluntariness of his waiver of Miranda rights; that he
was denied effective assistance of counsel and other rights at
trial and in sentencing; and that the sentencing instructions and
findings were improper.

Issue: Whether there is any ground for collateral relief from
the conviction or sentence.

Style: James F. Coy, M.P. v. Fla. Birth«Related Neurological
Injury Compensation Plan, No. 76,565.

Facts: The Compensation Plan assesses $5000 annually upon
obstetricians who choose to participate, and $250 on all other
physicians licensed in Florida. A group of physicians filed an
action challenging the $250 assessment as unreasonable in that
physicians generally get no more benefit from the plan than the
general public. The trial court upheld the Plan and the district
court of appeal affirmed. Petitioners argue the assessment
deprives them of due process and equal protection and that
lawmaking authority is delegated to the Plan and the Department
of Insurance.

Issues: Whether the Plan is invalid on any of the grounds
raised.

grt tan FH. cll gd

Style: Albert Hlad v. State of Florida. No. 76,623.

Facts: Hlad was convicted of DUI and was given an increased
penalty on the ground that it was his fourth DUI conviction. He
challenged the "enhancement" on the ground that one of the prior
offenses relied upon was obtained in violation of his right to
counsel. The trial court rejected the argument and the district
court of appeal affirmed on the ground that the uncounseled DUI
was not an invalid conviction since the charge was a misdemeanor
and no jail time was given.

Issue: Whether a prior DUI conviction, obtained in a proceeding
in which the defendant was not represented by counsel, can be
considered for enhancement purposes in adjudicating or sentencing
for a later offense.

Style: Gregory Capehart v. State of Florida, No. 74,231.

Facts: Capehart was convicted of first-degree murder and was
sentenced to death. On appeal he argues that the evidence was
insufficient, there were numerous errors in procedural and
evidentiary rulings at trial, the sentencing findings were
erronoeous, and other matters.

Issues: (1) Whether the conviction should be affirmed.

(2) Whether the sentence of death should be affirmed.

Pais Ld Ree SU 50 SATA SE NR of Ie 1 D2 EE ei 0 Ye TT Ca il Ah F.21/24

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1931

Style: Milford Wade Byrd v. State of Florida, No. 74,691

Facts: Byrd was convicted of first-degree murder and was
sentenced to death. On appeal, the conviction and sentence were
affirmed. Byrd now appeals from the denial of his motion for
postconviction relief under criminal procedure rule 3.850. He
claims that he did not get a fair trial and that he was not
afforded the effective assistance of counsel.

Issues: Whether a valid claim for postconviction relief is
presented.

So ————— ~~ —

Style: State of Florida v. Michael Donaldson, No. 76,129.

Facts: Donaldson was convicted of DUI. On review, the district
court of appeal held that it was error to admit a breathalyzer
test into evidence without testimony as to the maintenance,
inspection, operation and performance of the machine. The DCA
reasoned that these matters are statutory prerequisites to the
admission of such tests into evidence. The state seeks review.

Issue: Whether the evidence was properly admitted,

Style: Randy Williams v. State of Florida, No. 76,609.

Facts: Convicted of a crime, Williams was put on probation.
Upon his violation of probation, the court imposed a guidelines-
departure sentence. The district court of appeal approved the
departure on the ground that there was an escalating pattern of
criminal conduct. Williams seeks review, arguing that on a
violation of probation, the court is limited to a one-~cell
increase in the guidelines-recommended sentence, The state
responds that on violation of probation, the court can impose any
sentence it could have imposed initially, including a departure
sentence supported by proper reasons.

Issue: Whether the trial court was properly permitted to impose
a departure sentence upon revoking the defendant's probation.

-—]

SEE RE Ne a Ue RE Sl RE a TY Se
P.22724

Style: Jacksonville Medical Center v., State of Florida,
No, 76,2713

Facts: The Akers, plaintiffs in a medical malpractice suit,
sought discovery of a physician's application for appointment to
Jacksonville Medical Center's medical staff. The hospital
objected on the.ground of statutory privilege. The trial court
ordered production of the documents. The district court of
appeal affirmed, reasoning that the statutory privilege applied
to the hospital's internal documents but not to documents
submitted to it.

: : a
Issue: Whether the documents in question are subject to
discovery.

I —_—r var oo rod

Style: In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial
Administration, No. 76,962.

Facts: The Florida Bar Committee on Rules of Judicial
Administration has proposed rules for the certification and
regulation of court reporters.

Issue: Whether the proposed rules should be adopted.

FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 1391

Style: In re Amendments to the Florida Probate Rules

Facts: The Florida Bar's Committee on Probate Rules has proposed
amendments to the rules affecting guardianship.

Issue: Whether the proposed rules should be adopted,

pv —— TW S———

Style: P.A.Q. vs, A.F,, NO. 76,527

Facts: A.F. was paying P.A.G. for the support of a minor child
pursuant to a previous judgment of paternity. P.A.G. petitioned
for modification of A.F.'s support obligation. The modification
proceeding was settled by agreement. P.A.G. then asked the court
to award attorney's fees, which it did. On appeal, the district
court reversed on the ground that the paternity statute does not
authorize attorneys fees in actions for modification of support.

Issue: Whether the paternity statute can be construed to provide
for recovery of attorneys fees in modification proceedings.

Hi-i 1) SL dks VFL 9d BEL HSER te Fd bibl bob F.24-24

Style: Carl Puffinberger v. State of Plorida, No. 75,317

Facts: In sentencing Puffinberger, the trial court departed the
guidelines on the basis of three unscoreable adjudications on the
defendant's record that were committed when he was a juvenile.
The district court of appeal affirmed, but asked the Supreme
Court whether it was correct to do so.

Issue: To what extent may non-scoreable juvenile offenses
support a departure sentence?

So. wn wn w— WP . — —

Style: In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs,
No. 76,483 :

Facts: In three criminal appeals, appointed counsel filed Anders
briefs stating that no issue of reversible error appeared, but
also identifying issues that could be raised in the appeals. The
state moved to preclude use of the Anders procedure. The
district court of appeal held that the procedure was appropriate
in these cases. The state seeks review.

Issue: To what extent may counsel submit that no issue of
reversible error appears while at the same time identifying
issues to be considered on the appeal?

—l0=

TOTAL FP.BE

ROBERT H. STROUP
ATTORNEY AT LAW

STROUP & COLEMAN
191 WALTON STREET, N.W. TELEPHONE

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 (404) 522-8500

Z
X
R
E
X

Parole Board Basics
STATE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES

Floyd Veterans Memorial Building; Fifth Floor, East Tower; 2 M.L. King, Jr., Drive, S.E.; Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Telephone: (404) 656-5651

Fundamentals
The State Board of Pardons and Paroles is com-

posed of five members appointed by the Governor for
staggered seven-year terms subject to confirmation by
the State Senate, Each year the Board elects one of its
members to serve as chairman,

The Board was created in February 1943 by statute
law, and in August 1943 Georgia voters ratified an
amendment setting forth the Board's authority in the
State Constitution.

The Board is part of the Executive Branch of State
government, It is attached, for the purpose of receiving
administrative support, to the Department of Correc-
tions but performs its duties independently of that
Department,

The Role of a Parole Board
Executive clemency has a long tradition. Its

history goes back through the Governor, the Colonial

Governor, the King, the tribal chieftain, The final
appeal for mercy is heard by the top executive or,
currently, the executive clemency agency.

Clemency is typically administered today by an
independent parole board, which performs a function
vital if criminal justice is to remain a flexible and con-
tinuing process throughout, The board's existence
ensures that the Executive Branch, in addition to the
Legislative and Judicial, has a discretionary role in
criminal justice. Thus it provides a vital part of the
checks and balances of Constitutional government,

The principle of separation of powers is upheld
when the judiciary's regular involvement in a case ends
at the time the offender is sentenced to prison. Then the
parole board begins monitoring the inmate and draw-
ing knowledge of the case from the court, police, prison,
and society to form the basis of a just decision to grant
or deny clemency.

Persons are sentenced to prison for four purposes:
punishment, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilita-
tion. A parole board studies the need tor and accom-
plishment of cach of these purposes in cach case being
considered. Justice demands that the handling of each
case should be tailored to the crime and to the offender.
A parole board's view of a case necessarily differs
from that of a local court or law enforcement agency;
the board can compare the case with thousands of
others statewide. The board's unique central position
and authority allow it to reduce sentencing disparity.
Excessive harshness is more readily reduced, but exces-
sive leniency in the form of a too-light confinement
sentence may be corrected partially by parole denial,

It would be difficult to overestimate the importance
of a parole board's investigative and decision-making
authority being centralized. Any substitute prisoner-
release mechanism triggered by numerous officials scat-
tered in courthouses or prisons would be destined to be
inequitable and not in the best interests of the citizens’
safety or taxpayers’ pocketbooks,

Parole supervision works. This is the message from
studies conducted during a |S-year period by the
National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Parole
revocation rates nationwide have consistently been well
below the recidivism rates for persons discharged from
prison without parole. In Georgia the parolee success
rate regularly exceeds the national average.

Discretion in releasing inmates appears inevitable,
The question is where discretion is best placed and how
it is best applied. The answer is provided in an inde-
pendent, informed. just, and careful parole board.

Rule-Making Authority
The Board may at any time adopt rules not incon-

sistent with the law.

Tuesdays Reserved for Visitors
Anyone wishing to speak with a Board representa-

live about a case may come to the Board's central office
on any Tuesday which is not a State holiday between

. TIME-SERVED RULES
FOR PAROLE CONSIDERATION

A person serving a non-life sentence is consid-
ered for future parole and notified of the deci-
sion as soon as necessary investigations are

completed — usually about four months after
entering the State prison system. Typically, this
is his only consideration.

%
A person serving a life sentence generally is
considered after serving seven years and, if
denied, is reconsidered at intervals,

Overriding the above rules where applicable, the
State Constitution does not permit exceptions
to the following laws:

I. A person serving for Armed Robbery com-
mitted in 1977 or later must serve at least five
years before becoming eligible for parole
consideration,

2. A person whose death sentence is commuted
to life imprisonment by the Board in 1977 or
later must serve 25 years before becoming
cligible for parole consideration,

3. A person convicted of Murder and sen-
tenced to life imprisonment for an offense
committed on or after July |, 1983, and who
has previously been imprisoned under a life
sentence must serve 25 years before become
ing cligible for parole consideration.

4. A person who is serving consecutive life

sentences for offenses occurring in the same
series of acts committed on or after July |,
1983, and any of the life sentences is for
Murder must serve consecutive ten-year
periods for cach such sentence, up to a max-
imum of 30 years, before becoming eligible

for parole consideration.

8:15a.m,and 4:15 p.m. No appointment is needed. The
Board welcomes inmates’ relatives, friends, and attor-
neys and others desiring to speak for or against
clemency.

Representation by Attorneys
Representation by an attorney is not necessary for

any type of clemency consideration, Consideration for

parole is automatic, and application for other types of
clemency is casy. Board procedures are not toa formal

or complex for the average person to understand, The
decision whether to employ an attorney is a personal
decision by the offender, ex-offender, or anyone acting
in his behalf,

Only licensed attorneys who are active members, in
good standing, of the State Bar of Georgia may appear
before the Board for a fee. The Board may require an
attorney representing a person before the Board to file a
sworn statement as to whether he is receiving.a fee.

A member of the Georgia General Assembly or
other elected or appointed State official may not charge
a fcc for appearing before the Board regardless of
whether he is an attorney.

Written Communication Preferred
The Board greatly prefers receiving written com-

munication on a case rather than oral communication
so that such communication may readily be made a
permanent part of the case file.

Confidentiality of Records
All information, both oral and written, reccived by

the Board in the performance of its duty and which is

not public record elsewhere and was not obtained in a
public Board hearing is classified as confidential State
secret unless declassified by resolution of the Board.
Confidential information includes investigative and
supervisory reports and recommendations for and
against clemency.

Majority Vote Decides Clemency
A decision to grant any type of clemency is by

majority vote.

Acceptance of Conditions in Writing
An inmate is informed of the conditions of his

parole, reprieve, or other conditional clemency and
must accept all conditions by signing the clemency
document before the clemency will become effective,

Withdrawal of Grant of Clemency
The Board reserves the right to withdraw the grant

of any form of clemency prior to the effective date if, in
its discretion, it believes withdrawal to be justified.

Earned Time
The State Board of Pardons and Paroles does not

administer the system of crediting Farned Time to an
inmate's sentence. ‘The Department of Corrections has

that responsibility, However, the program is phasing
out so that an inmate serving for an offense committed
in 1984 or thereafter receives no Earned Time credit
whatsoever,

A parolee with Earned Time eredit who is guilty of
misconduct on parole may have Earned Time forfeited

by order of the Parole Board.

Parole
Parole is the discretionary release of an offender

from confinement, after he has served part of his sen-
tence, under continuing State custody and supervision
and under conditions which, il violated, permit his
reimprisonment, In Georgia, State and county inmates
may be granted parole only by the State Board of
Pardons and Paroles.

Parole Consideration
An inmate serving a State felony or State misde-

meanor sentence in the custody of the Departinent of
Corrections is automatically considered for parole. No
application is necessary,

An inmate serving consecutive county misdemenn-
or confinement sentences exceeding 12 months is con-
sidered for parole if he has requested consideration,

The Board considers an inmate lor parole

regardless of appeals or other legal action by the
inmate or his representive. If the Board has no active
serial-numbered case file on him, he must request
parole consideration,

A request for parole consideration may be in any
written form and must contain the name under which

the inmate was convicted, the place where he is serving,
the offense(s), date(s) and court(s) of conviction, and

the length(s) of sentence(s). The request should be sub-

mitted as early as possible to allow enough time for
., necessary investigations.

The Board may decide not to consider paroling an
offender serving a Georgia sentence in custody at an
out-of-State or Federal prison or at a mental hospital
when favorable action of the Board would not result in
the offenders release from confinement,

Parole Decision by Independent Judgement
When an inmate is considered for parole, the case

file is given to one of the five Board members, who
studies it, deliberates alone, and renders his indepen-
dent decision. Then a staff member transfers the file to a
second Board member, who writes his decision. This
process continues until the majority decision has been
determined.

P
a

sD
L
A
N
E
S

Prior History

A. The inmate's employment history, education, and
occupational skills and training (including military
training).

B. The inmate's past illegal use of controlled substan-
ces or past habitual and excessive use of alcohol.

C. Any recommendations made by the sentencing
court.

D. The inmate's behavior and attitude during any pre-
vious experience of probation or parole, and the
recency of such experience.

E. Circumstances of the offense for which the inmate is
serving a sentence.

F. Any protests or recommendations filed with the
Board regarding the inmate's suitability for parole.

G. Any record which the inmate may have of past
offenses.

H. The inmate's reputation in the community,

Prison Record
A. Theinmate's ability and readiness to assume obliga-

tions and undertake responsibilities.
"B. The inmate's vocational, educational, and other

training since incarceration.
C. The inmate's conduct during his term of imprison-

ment, 5
D. Any noticeable attitudinal change since the offense

for which the inmate was incarcerated.
E. The physical and emotional status of the inmate,
F. The inmate's positive efforts on behalf of himself or

on behalf of others.

Forward View

A. The inmate's family status, including whether his
relatives display an interest in him or whether he has
other close and constructive associations in the
community.

B. The type of residence, neighborhood, or commu-
nity in which the inmate plans to live.

C. The adequacy of the inmate's plans or prospects
upon release.

D. The availability of community resources to assist
the inmate.

Inmate Interview Program
Before initial parole consideration every inmate is

interviewed by a parole officer. Unfortunately, time
does not permit any inmate before initial consideration
to have an additional interview with a Board member,
However, under a continuing program, an inmate (typ-
ically a life sentence inmate) nearing his parole recon-
sideration month is automatically selected for interview
by a Board member if he meets certain criteria, which
are available in writing on request.

Recommendations for Parole
Submitting recommendations or signatures on peti-

tions is not necessary for favorable parole considera-
tion, Views of persons familiar with a case are obtained
through regular official investigations and kept confi-
dential. The Board does not encourage an inmate or
anyone acting in his behalf to scck a recommendation
from a judge or prosecutor because such officials often
do not consider that a proper judicial function. How-
ever, the Board welcomes information from any source,
public or private, which may shed additional light on a
case. It welcomes voluntary recommendations and
information from court and other public officials, from
the inmate's relatives, neighbors, and friends, and from
all others.

Recommendations Against Parole
The Board welcomes receiving all available infor-

mation on a case, both favorable and unfavorable, and

keeps such information and its source strictly confiden-
tial. Recommendations against granting parole should
be made in writing over the signature of the writer or in
person, and all reasons for opposing parole should be
fully explained.

Residence and Employment Plans
It is necessary that an inmate have an acceptable

residence plan before his release on parole although not
necessarily before the Board renders its decision. In
addition, if at all possible, the inmate should have an
acceptable employment offer.

Out-of-State Parole
Aninmate who wants to be paroled to another state

should notify the Georgia State Board of Pardons and
Paroles of his specific residence and employment plans,
giving complete addresses. He may do this by informing

the parole officer who interviews him for the Personal
History Statement before his initial consideration or by
writing directly to the Board.

A prospective parolee has legitimate reasons to
request out-of-State parole if he has been a resident of
the proposed receiving state, if his family lives there, and

if suitable employment can be arranged before his
release, The proposed receiving state investigates the
inmate's parole plans and decides whether to accept
him for supervision. The Georgia Board must also
approve the inmate's parole plans, and only the Georgia
Board may grant parole,

Detainer and Conditional Transfer
A detainer indicating an inmate is wanted to face

charges or serve a sentence may be filed with the
Department of Corrections by authorities in Georgia,
another state, the Federal system, or the military.

A detainer does not prevent an inmate from being
considered by the Parole Board. However, the Board
considers.the inmate not for parole but for conditional
transfer to the custody of the detaining authority, Only
if the detaining authority released the person before the
end of his Georgia sentence could his status, at the
Board's discretion, become that of a parolee.

Because detainers against Georgia inmates are filed
with the Department of Corrections, all inquiries about
them should be directed to that Department or to the
detaining authority.

Waiver of Parole Consideration
Aninmate may waive parole consideration by noti-

fying the Board in writing. He may withdraw his waiver
the same way but only after it has been in effect thirty
days.

An inmate thinking of temporarily waiving parole
consideration should realize that a waiver halts or pre-
vents pre-parole case investigations which may take
months to complete. Therefore, after withdrawing his
waiver, the inmate may have to wait several months

before his case is ready for consideration,

Parole Supervision
When an inmate is paroled, he is placed initially

under maximum parole supervision, meaning his parole
officer sees him at least four times a month. The parole
officer makes unscheduled visits to the parolee at home
and on the job, and the parolee is required to report
regularly to the local parole office.

Supervision is the parole officer's main duty, How-
ever, in addition to his surveillance role, the parole
officer is a counselor who helps the parolee with any
fumily, budget, or job-placement problems. When
appropriate, he may also refer the parolee to other

governmental or private agencies for assistance.
If, despite all efforts to help the parolee become a

productive member of society, the parolee does not
respond to supervision and violates parole conditions,
the parole officer assumes the role of an enforcement
officer, He submits a report on the parolee's miscon-
duct to the Field Operations Division central office,
which may initiate revocation procedures.

Georgia parole officer candidates are required to
have four-year college degrees. They receive intensive
basic training, which meets requirements of the Georgia

Peace Officer Standards and Training Act, in firearms,

arrest procedures, ethics, investigation and supervision
procedures, surveillance techniques, and constitutional
law, among other subjects. Parole officers are certified
as peace officers with authority to carry lircarms and
arrest parolees.

Supervision Fee and Restitution
A standard parole condition requires a parolee to

pay a $10 monthly parole supervision fee and any
Board-ordered restitution and to begin paying any
court-ordered payments while on parole,

Persons who are physically able to work or who
are financially able to pay are required to pay the
supervision fee. The Board has the authority to
change the amount of this fee as long as it is uniform
statewide, :

Inan appropriate case the Board may also order a
series of restitution payments to a crime victim,

All persons whose sentences include payment of
victim restitution, fincs, or court costs are encouraged
to begin making these payments upon release on
parole. The purpose is to place such payments in the
popes hands sooner and to help ensure payment in
ull, :

The Board concentrates on cases in which the
parolees owe $25,000 or more in court-ordered
restitution or fines. Typically, these are drug
trafficking cases. Such parolees are required to begin

making payments upon release.
Parole officers direct their parolees to make their

court-ordered payments to local probation offices,
which maintain records and distribute funds.

The Board also reserves the right, in appropriate
cases, to require payment of any court-ordered
amount as a precondition to being released on parole.

Arrest of Parolee
When a parolee has reportedly violated a condition

of his release, a Board warrant may be issued for his

arrest. If the alleged violation is absconding from parole
supervision or if the parolee is otherwise not available
to the Board for a hearing, a temporary revocation
order may be issued. This order suspends the running of
the sentence from the date of the order,

Preliminary Hearing for Alleged Violator
A parolee arrested on a Board warrant for allegedly

violating a parole condition is afforded a preliminary
hearing within a reasonable time at or near the place of
the alleged violation before a Board hearing officer not
directly involved in the case. The purpose of the pre-
liminary hearing is to determine whether there is proba-
ble cause to believe the parolee violated a parole condi-
tion and whether he should be held under arrest
pending the Board's decision on revocation.

A preliminary hearing is not required if the parolee
is not under arrest on a Board warrant, has absconded
from supervision, has signed a waiver of preliminary
hearing, has admitted any alleged violation to any
Board representative in the presence of a third party

who is not a Board representative, or has been con-
victed of any new crime in a Georgia court, a court of
another state, or a Federal court.

The parolee is given written notice of the prelimi-
nary hearing, allowing reasonable time to prepare his
case. The parolee may retain counsel to represent him at
the preliminary hearing. The parolee may present wit-
nesses and documentary evidence in his own behalf,
and he may cross-cxamine adverse witnesses unless the
hearing officer determines that a witness would be sub-
jected to risk of harm if his identity were disclosed. The
parolee is invited to make statements and answer ques-
tions but is not required to do so,

The hearing officer may issue subpoenas to compel
the attendance of witnesses resident within the county
ol the alleged violation, He may also issue subpoenas
for the production of documents or other written evi-
dence at the hearing,

After the preliminary hearing the hearing officer
submits to the Board a written report on the testimony,
on his findings, and on any decision to release the

parolee on his personal recognizance. By majority vote
the Board ratifies or overrules the hearing officer's find-
ings and any decision to release and decides whether to
hold a final hearing.

Final Hearing for Alleged Violator
A parolee charged with violating a parole condition

is afforded a final hearing within a reasonable time
before the Board. The purpose of the final hearing is to
determine whether the parolee has violated a parole
condition and whether the violation warrants parole
revocation.

A final hearing is not required if the parolee has
admitted the violation and signed a waiver of final
hearing or has been convicted of or entered a plea of
guilty or nolo contendere to a felony or misdemeanor in
a Georgia court of record. In such case the Board may,
revoke parole without a hearing,

In addition, if a parolee, freed on his personal re-
cognizance, fails to appear at his final hearing, the
Board may summarily revoke his parole.

The parolee is given written notice of the final hears
ing, allowing reasonable time to prepare his case, At the
final hearing the parolee has the same rights a parolee
has at a preliminary hearing as specified above,

The Board may subpoena witnesses from through-
out Georgia to appear at the final hearing and may issue
subpoenas for the production of documents or other
written evidence at the hearing.

After the final hearing the Board decides by major-
ity vote whether to continue or revoke parole,

Discharge from Parole
When a person is released on parole, his projected

prison discharge date becomes his projected date for
discharge from parole supervision.

When discharge from parole occurs, if all sentences
from all jurisdictions have been completed, including
any court-ordered payment, and if no criminal charge is
pending, the Board's discharge order includes a Resto-
ration of Civil and Political Rights,

3
aa

d
d
a
r
a
ot

N
A
L
I

M
i

ar
tran

“

’
:

A
S

L
A
D

uo
A
e

hi
a

cn
ab
et

r
m
a

Early Discharge from Parole
The Board may grant an early discharge from

parole, upon recommendation from a parole officer,
when his parolee has served four years on parole on a

life sentence with a satisfactory adjustment in society or
three years on parole on a life sentence with an exem-
plary adjustment in society; or when the parolee has
served three years on parole on a lesser sentence with a
satisfactory adjustment in society or two years on
parole on a lesser sentence with an exemplary adjust-
ment in society. A parolee who meets these require-

ments may apply to the Board through his parole

officer for a discharge from parole which includes a
commutation of his remaining prison sentence to time
served.

Reprieve
Reprieve is the temporary suspension of a prison

sentence to release an offender under conditions which,
if violated, permit his reimprisonment. The State Board
of Pardons and Paroles may grant a compassionate

reprieve, medical reprieve, maternity reprieve, educa-
tional reprieve, and reprieves for other suitable reasons.

A reprieve, unlike a parole, is a sentence suspension,
but the Board usually credits reprieve time to an
inmate's sentence if he obeys reprieve conditions. How-
ever, a reprievee returned to prisor as a reprieve viola-
tor receives no credit on his sentence for any time spent
on reprieve,

Compassionate Reprieve
A compassionate reprieve is a release from prison

fora few hours ora few days to allow an inmate to visit
a critically or terminally ill member of his immediate
family, to visit an immediate family member undergo-
ing a critical operation, to attend the funcral of a
member of his immediate family, or for other reasons
the Board deems appropriate.

A request for a compassionate reprieve may be
submitted to the Board's central office in person, by
letter, or by telephone. During non-office hours, a

request may be telephoned to the Board's duty officer
through Stone Mountain Correctional Institution,

The request should include the name of the critically
ill patient and his illness or the name of the deceased,
the telephone number of the physician or funeral dirce-
tor who will confirm this information, the relation of
the patient or deceased to the inmate, the hospital
where the patient is being treated or the date, time, and
location of the funeral, the proposed residence during
the reprieve, and the travel arrangements,

A prison warden, following policy set by the
Department of Corrections, may for similar reasons
authorize an emergency special leave. Therefore, an
inmate thinking of requesting a compassionate reprieve
from the Board should first request from his warden, if
Department of Corrections policy permits, an emer-
gency special leave.

Medical Reprieve
A medical reprieve may be granted to an inmate

shown to be suffering from an illness for which neces-
sary treatment is available only outside the State prison
system or to an inmate in deteriorating condition from
a terminal illness. The written request for such a

reprieve should be submitted to the Board through the
Department of Corrections, which should medically
document the need for the reprieve. The request should
also include the plan for residence, medical care, and
payment of medical expenses.

Maternity Reprieve
A maternity reprieve is a temporary release from

prison to allow an inmate to give birth to her baby
outside prison and to nurture the child for a short
period after birth,

A request for a maternity reprieve must be received,
depending on where the inmate is housed, from the
counselor designated to handle reprieve requests at the
Georgia Women's Correctional Institution, from a
counselor at a women's transitional center, or from a
sheriff or jailor in charge of a county jail.

A maternity reprieve request should include a
signed statement from the inmate asking for the
reprieve, a copy of the physician's report giving the
estimated date of confinement to have the baby, and a
letter from the person responsible for medical costs and
residence for the inmate and her baby.

The usual length of a maternity reprieve is 60 days,
extending from 30 days before the expected delivery
date to 30 days after this date. If an inmate gives birth
before a reprieve can start, the Board will consider a

request for a 30-day reprieve to allow the inmate to take
her baby home and make arrangments for the baby's
care when she returns to prison.

Educational Reprieve
Ancducational reprieve is an earlier-than-scheduled

release from prison to allow an inmate to enter a col-
lege, university, technical school, or other educational
institution which has accepted him for enrollment. The
Board may consider a request for an educational .
reprieve for up to 90 days before an inmate's discharge
date or tentative parole month.

The written request for an educational reprieve
must include a letter of acceptance from the school, a

suitable residence plan, and proof of the inmate's finan-
cial ability to attend school full time.

Inmates serving for capital offenses, sex offenses, or
drug sales are not eligible to apply for consideration.

Commutation
Commutation is the reduction of a sentence to a

lesser sengence.
NL -

Commutation of Unjust Sentence
The State Board of Pardons and Paroles considers

commuting a prison sentence only when it receives
substantial written evidence that the sentence is either
excessive or constitutes a miscarriage of justice, With-
out convincing evidence to the contrary, the Board
presumes that a sentence is fair and correct.

The Superior Courts Sentence Review Panel is
another agency which considers reducing a sentence,
The Parole Board normally does not consider a come
mutation request while an application to that Panclor a
court appeal is pending.

Commutation of Death Sentence
Before court appeals of a capital punishment case

have ended, the Board obtains complete information
about the circumstances of the offense and the criminal
history.

Application for commutation of a death sentence
may be in any written form and must contain grounds
on which the application is based. After receiving the
application and after court appeals have ceased or have
neared exhaustion, the Board decides whether or not to

consider commutation, If the decision is to consider
commutation and sufficient time does not remain for a
complete and fair review of the case, the execution of
the death sentence is suspended for a period not exceed-
ing 90 days to allow time for the review. This review
may or may not include a hearing,

The Georgia Constitution states that a person
whose death sentence is commuted by the Roard to life
imprisonment (in 1977 or later) cannot be pardoned or
paroled before serving 25 years.

Remission
Remission of a sentence, as granted by the State

Board of Pardons and Paroles, is the lessening of the
duration of confinement without reducing the length of
sentence. The Board may remit all or part of a confine-
ment sentence to require it be served under parole
supervision,

Violation and Hearings
An offender whose confinement sentence was re-

mitted by the Board and who is accused of violating a

PAROLE BOARD
DOES NOT RUN PRISONS

The State Board of Pardons and Paroles has no
responsibility to run the State prison system,
Only the Department of Corrections adminis.
ters the prisons, transfers an inmate from one
prison to another, assigns an inmate to prison
programs, makes an inmate a trusty, gives an
inmate a furlough at special times like Thanks-
giving and Christmas, computes time to be
served, issues time sheets, provides medical care,
grants visiting and mail privileges, and takes
prison disciplinary action. The Parole Board is
not responsible for any of those things, Ques-
tions about those things should be directed to
the Department of Corrections; Floyd Veterans
Memorial Building; Eighth Floor, East Tower; 2

M.L. King, Jr., Drive, S.E.; Atlanta, Georgia
30334.

condition of release will be subject to the same arrest
and hearing procedures and afforded the same rights
applicable to an accused parole violator,

Pardon
A pardon is a declaration of record by the State

Board of Pardons and Paroles that a person is relieved
from the legal consequences of a particular conviction.

"It restores civil and political rights and removes legal
disabilities resulting from the conviction.

Basis for Granting Pardon
A pardon may be granted in two instances:

|. A pardon may be granted to a person who, to
the Board's satisfaction, proves his innocence of
the crime for which he was convicted under
Georgia law, Newly available evidence proving
the person's complete justification or non-guilt
may be the basis for granting a pardon. Applica-
tion may be submitted in any written form any
time after conviction.

2. A pardon which does not imply innocence may
be granted to an applicant convicted under
Georgia law who has completed his full sentence

obligation, including serving any probated sen-

tence and paying any court-ordered payment,

and who has thereafter completed five years
without any criminal involvement. The five-
year waiting period after sentence completion
may be waived if the waiting period is shown to
be detrimental to the applicant's livelihood by
delaying his qualifying for employment in his
chosen profession. Application must be made
by the ex-offender on a form available from the
Board on request,

No pardon is automatic; the Board judges the mer-
its of cach individual case.

Removal of Disabilities
Under Georgia law a person convicted of a “felony

involving moral turpitude” loses his civil and political
rights, including the right to vote, the right to hold
public office, nnd the right to serve ona jury, Under the

1983 State Constitution the right to vote is restored
automatically to ex-offenders who have completed
their sentences.

Using an application form available on request, a
person who was convicted under Georgia law may
apply to the State Board of Pardons and Paroles for a
Restoration of Civil and Political Rights. If the person
was convicted under another state's law or under Fed-
cral law but is residing in Georgia and wishes to exercise
civiland political rights in this State, he also may apply.

Restoration of Civil and Political Rights
A Restoration of Civil and Political Rights carries

no implication of innocence. Iomay be granted only toa
person who has completed his full sentence or, with no
probation unserved ar court-ordered payment unpaid,

has completed four years on Georgia parole on a life
sentence with a satisfactory adjustment in society (three
years with exemplary adjustment) or completed three
years on Georgia parole on a lesser sentence with a
satisfactory adjustment in society (two years with
exemplary adjustment).

Automatic Rights Restoration
The Board automatically restores civil and political

rights to a felony parolee upon discharge from parole if
he has no other sentence to serve, court-ordered pay-
ment to pay, or pending criminal charge against him.

: Restoration of Fircarm Right
Under both Georgia law and federal law,

conviction of a felony removes the right to receive,
possess, and transport a firearm, A pardon applicant
or rights-restoration applicant, normally at least five

years after sentence completion, may request that the
pardon or restoration be specially worded to restore
this fircarm right, but he must provide in detail his
reason for the request.

Board policy is to deny restoration of the firearm
right to an applicant who possessed a firearm during
the commission of any offense.

As an alternative to applying for a Georgia
restoration of the fircarm right, a person may apply
for a federal restoration of this right through the
Burcau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the
United States Department of the Treasury.

Published June 1989 §1,3729/10M

An inmate serving a noo-tife sentence whose case

has been coasidered under Parole Decision Guidelines

receives a Notice of Tentative Action. It leads him step
by step 10 show him how and why the Board arrived at

its tentative decision. If be thinks an error bas been

made in the Guidelines computations, he has 30 days in
which he may request

An inmate serving 8 Me sentence who is denied
parole is sent a letter informing him of the decision and

Os the same ¢3) aa tamate) parole ceruficate u

fosmed, be 8 seat 3 tier informing hia of hi tentative

- 208 10 is always tenuative an

cipensob : rast jar S for cause prior to the

imate) reas

Work Release and Alcohol-Drug Treatment
When considering an inmate for parole, the Board

may vote tentatively for parole on condition that the
inmate successfully completes the Department of Cor-
rections’ work release program first, which usually
takes about four months. The inmate is notified that he
is being recommended to that Department for work
release.

In the same way, the Board during parole consider-
ation may recommend an inmate for the Department of
Corrections’ alcohol and drug treatment program,

which, upon successful completion, may lead to parole.
; The only time the Board normally may consider

! recommending an inmate for these programs is when
the Board sets a Tentative Parole Month or when an
inmate reaches his Tentative Parole Month but needs
to develop a parole residence plan.

Consideration of Lifer After Parole Denizl
A life-sentence inmate who is denied parole is sche-

duled for his next parole consideration not more than
cight years later,

Consideration After Escape
An inmate who has escaped will not be considered

for parole until his return to custody of Georgia prison
authorities. If a life-sentence inmate was considered for
parole before his escape, he is scheduled for his next
consideration one to cight years after recapture.

Consideration After Parole Revocation
A person returned to prison after parole revocation

is scheduled for parole consideration six months to one
year after revocation if he has sufficient confinement
time remaining or unless a new sentence supersedes the
revoked sentence for the purpose of computing parole
cligibility or unless the Board directs otherwise.

Exceptional Parole Consideration
An inmate or his representative may apply to the

Board in any written form presenting substantial evi-
dence as to why the inmate should be considered or
reconsidered for parole before the scheduled time.
However, the Board must adhere to the four numbered
provisions of law listed in Time-Served Rules for
Parole Consideration on page |. In determining whether
to consider the case as an exception, the Board weighs
tle following:

|. A substantial showing that the sentence is exces-
sively harsh or that a miscarriage of justice has
occurred.

2. A substantial showing of the necessity for
carlicr-than-scheduled consideration to promote
rehabilitation of the inmate. For example, such
showing may include the inmate's proposed
admission, within three months of the regular
parole consideration date or tentative parole
month, into a college, university, technical
school, or other educational institution which
has accepted him for enrollment, Consideration
is given to the recommendation of the Depart-
ment of Corrections, convincing evidence that
the inmate could and would improve his situa-
tion through earlier release and that he has
already made substantial progress toward reha-
bilitation and would abide by the rules of a free
society, and convincing evidence that continued
imprisonment of the inmate would serve no
beneficial purpose,

The Board emphasizes that family circumstances,
>

business affairs, hardship, sickness, need, and other

reasons shared almost universally by inmates are not

such evidence on which the Board makes an exception.

The Board considers a sentence imposed by a court

10 be fair, just, and correct unless there is a substantial

showing to the contrary.

Notification of Judge, D.A., and Sheriff
Before making a decision on whether to parole an

inmate, the Board carefully reviews any comments

from court officials. It actively solicits such comments,
bebeving they can lead to better decisions.

The Board requires a parole officer beginning a
pre-parole Legal Investigation of an inmate's offense to
send a letter to the district attorney or assistant district
attorney who prosecuted the case. The letter encour-
ages the prosecutor to comment and, in particular,
“share his knowledge of any aggravating or mitigating
circumstarices. If the prosecutor gives his response
promptly, it is made a part of the Legal Investigation
report. If it arrives later, it is sent to the Board's central
office as a supplement to the report.

If the Board is to consider paroling an inmate before
he has served the time required for automatic initial
consideration, the Board notifies in writing, at least ten
days before formal consideration, the sentencing judge
and district attorney of the county where the inmate
was sentencéd to give them an opportunity to express
their views,

After the Board issucs a parole order, a notice of
parole is within 72 hours sent to the presiding judge,
district attorney, sheriff of the county of conviction,
and sheriff of the county of the parolec's last residence if
this was in Georgia. If a Victim Impact Statement has
been filed with the Board and the offense was a crime
against the person, the victim is notified also.

When the Board seriously considers commuting an
inmate's prison sentence, it notifies the sentencing judge
and invites him to express his views on the proposed
action,

Victim Impact Statement and Notification
A crime victim may obtain from a prosecuting

attorney a form called a Victim Impact Statement and
may fill it out, citing any physical, psychological, or
economic injury to the victim caused by the defendant.
The victim should give the completed Statement to the
prosecuting attorney, who files it with the Court and
makes it available to the defendant for rebuttal,

If the victim is unable to use the form because of
mental, emotional, or physical incapacity or because of
the victim's age or because the victim is deceased, the
victim's attorney or a family member may complete the
form on behalf of the victim.

Except in cases in which life imprisonment or the
death penalty must be imposed, a judge may consider
this Statement in determining the appropriate sentence,
including any order of restitution to the victim, if the
defendant, in committing a felony, caused physical,
psychological, or economic injury to the victim or if the
defendant, in committing a misdemeanor, caused serious
physical injury or death to the victim,

Under the same circumstances listed in the above
paragraph, the Court may allow the victim or his repre-
sentative to make an oral Victim Impact Statement in
the presence of the defendant, who has the opportunity
to rebut it.

If the defendant is sentenced to prison, the prosceut-
ing attorney makes the Statement available to the State
Board of Pardons and Paroles for review during parole
consideration. If it is a crime against the person, such as
rape or armed robbery, the Parole Board notifiés the
victim of any final decision to grant parole. The victim
is responsible for sending written notice of any change
in his mailing address directly to the Parole Board.

If the victim does not submit a written Victim
Impact Statement to the prosecuting attorney belore
sentencing, he still may submit it to the Parole Board
before parole consideration, which may occur as carly
as four months after imprisonment. wy

Apart from using the above form, a victim or rela-
tive of a victim may always submit a confidential letter
directly to the Parole Board providing information and
requesting notification of any tentative release decision.

Pre-Parole Investigations
Before the Board considers an inmate for parole, it

conducts investigations, detailed reports of which
become a part of the Board's case file, which is separate
from files maintained by the Department of Corrections.

First, a parole officer studies arrest and court
records and may talk with arresting officers, court offi-
cials, victims, and witnesses so he can write a Legal

PAROLE DECISION 1
GUIDELINES

Parole Decision Guidelines help the State Board
of Pardons and Paroles make a more consistent,
soundly based, and understandable parole
decision on an inmate serving a sentence less
than life imprisonment. Guidelines help the
Board decide on a Tentative Parole Month for
the inmate or decide that he will complete his
sentence without parole,

A Board hearing examiner identifies an inmate's

Crime Severity Level from a table of offenses
ranked in seven levels from lowest to highest
severity. The higher the severity, the longer the
inmate is recommended to serve. Then the hear-
ing examiner calculates the inmate's Parole
Success Likelihood Score by adding weighted
factors with proven predictive value from the
inmate's criminal and social history. A history
of things such as prior imprisonment, parole or
probation failure, heroin use or possession, and
joblessness would increase the risk of paroling
the inmate and cause him to be recommended
for longer confinement.

The hearing examiner inserts the inmate's Crime
Severity Level and Parole Success Likelihood
Score into a Guidclines Chart, which, also
weighing sentence length and prison capacity,
recommends how long the inmate should be
confined. This translates into either a recom-
mendation for parole denial or for a Tentative
Parolc Month in the future.

By majority vote the Parole Board members

either agree with the Guidelines recommenda-
tion or, for a stated reason, depart from it and
make an independent decision. Then they send
the inmate a notice explaining their decision and
emphasizing that any ‘Tentative Parole Month is

conditioned on good conduct in prison. Usually

on the recommendation of the Department of
Corrections, misconduct results in parole post-
poncment or cancellation.

Parole Guidelines help keep the Board on track

toward its goal of seeing that inmates serving for
similar offenses with similar histories are treated
the same,

Investigation report on the details of the inmate's cur-

rent offense and a summary of any prior offenses in the
same county,

Next, a parole officer interviews the inmate and
completes a Personal History Statement questionnaire,
The inmate is asked, among other things, where he has
resided, attended school, and worked; who his family
members arc and where they live; whom he has chosen
as references; where he plans to live and work; and what
his own account is of his crime.

Finally, a parole officer conducts a Social Investiga-

tion, which includes interviews with persons mentioned
inthe Personal History Statement as well as others. The
written report presents a revealing picture of the
inmate's life from birth to current imprisonment and
may also indicate the degree of his truthfulness.

Before the inmate is paroled, the Board receives a
Parole Review Summary from the Department of Cor-
rections. This discusses the inmate's behavior, attitude,
physical status, mental and emotional condition, partic.
ipation in activitics, and performance in work and
training.

The Board may, at its discretion, request detailed
psychological and/or psychiatric opinions before con-
sidering a case.

Other documents in the case file usually include a
Federal Bureau of Investigation or Georgia Crime
Information Center record of arrests and convictions,
Classificationand Admission Summary (on the inmate's
condition when he entered prison), Disciplinary Reports,
all letters received, and summaries of information from
central office visitors.

Important Factors in Parole Decision
Certain factors have been designated by the Board

as especially important when a person is considered for
parole. The Board will not parole an inmate if there is
substantial reason to believe he will engage in further
criminal conduct or will not conform to specified condi-
tions of parole. Inits thorough and impartial investiga-
tions the Board will take into account any or all of the
following factors: :

[C
PE

R
A
N

ve
s

PAROLE SUCCESS FACTORS

ITEM A. AGE AT FIRST COMMITMENT

(26 or over = 5)
{22 =-:25 = 3)

(18 - 21 = 2)

(17 or less = 0)

ITEM B.., PRIOR CONVICTIONS (JUVENILE AND ADULT)

(None = 3)

(1 = 2) ”. *

{2 -.3 = 1)
(4 or more = 0)

ITEM C. PRIOR INCARCERATION SINCE AGE 17

(None = 2)
(1 = 1)

(2 or more = 0)

PAROLE AND PROBATION FAILURE

(No Failures = 4)
(Probation Only = 2)

(Parole Only = 1)

(Both = 0)

NO USE, POSSESSION OR ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN HEROIN OR OPIATE DRUGS = 1

OTHERWISE = 0

COMMITMENT OFFENSE DID NOT INVOLVE BURGLARY OR FORGERY = 2
OTHERWISE = 0

FULLY EMPLOYED DURING 6 MONTHS PRECEDING CURRENT OFFENSE = 1
OTHERWISE = 0

HAD WRAT SCORE OF 8 OR HIGHER AT TIME OF DIAGNOSTIC TESTING = 2
OTHERWISE = 0

ar
2
R
a
m
a
n
A

2 H
A
I
A

a
FR

A
A

S
A
A

Y
N

—~
en
em
'

F
I
E
R
A

C
H
O
I
R
S

EA
T

A
L
L

A
E

S
C

B
l

CRIME SEVERITY LEVELS

The Crime Severity Level is selected from the table of offenses listed below. If the offense is not listed, the Severity Level

containing the most similar listed offense is chosen.

If the Board determines that the inmate is serving for an "attempted" offense, the offense will be rated one (1) severity level less

than the level where the actual offense is listed.

If the inmate is serving for multiple offenses, the most serious offense will determine the Crime Severity Level. If serving for
parole/probation revocation based on the commission of a new offense, the Crime Severity Level will be determined by that

offense. i;

LEVEL 1

Bad Checks - under $2,000
Burglary - less than $300, not in residential dwelling, single count
Credit Card Theft
Criminal Interference with Government Property
Escape/Custody - no weapon, aiding escape

Forgery II - possession, 10 or fewer counts or less than $1,000
Habitual Violator
Posscssion/passing forged prescriptions - 1st offense

Possession of tools to commit a crime

Theft - under $1,000

Theft of Vehicle - not to sell; 1 count, 1st offense

VGCSA - possession - single offense

LEVEL II

Bad Checks - $2,000 or more

Burglary - unoccupied dwelling, $300 to $2,000, single count

Communicating Gambling Information
Credit Card Fraud - 10 or fewer counts or less than $1,000

Criminal Damage II - $300 to $2,000
Forgery | - 10 or fewer counts or less than $1,000
Possession of an Illegal Firearm or Explosives
Theft - $1,000 0 $4,999
Theft of Vehicle - not for sale, 2nd offense

VGCSA - possession, 2nd offense
VGCSA - salc/intent w sell/disuribution, 1st offense

LEVEL ITI

Burglary - occupied dwelling, or 2 to § counts, or $2,001 0 $5,000
Credit Card Fraud - more than 10 counts or $1,000
Criminal Damage - life in danger or over $2,000
Forgery | - over 10 counts or $1,000 or more
Homicide by Vehicle

Involuntary Manslaughter
Terroristic Threats
Theft - $5,000 to $10,000
Theft of Vehicle - for sale or 2 to 3 counts without intent to sell or

third offense
VGCSA - sale, 2nd offense or third drug possession
Obstruction of Officers - Felony

LEVEL IV

Arson II - $2,000
Burglary - over $5,000, or 6 or more counts
Enticing a Child
Theft of Vehicle - 4 or more counts or 4th or greater offense
Theft - over $10,000

LEVEL V

Aggravated Assault

Arson |
Child Molestation or Statutory Rape
Cocaine related violations of GCSA-28 10 199 grams®

Cruelty to Children

Homicide by Vehicle while DUI or Hab Violator
Incest
Marijuana-rclated violations of GCSA-100 to 1,999 pounds*
Opiate-reluted violations of GCSA 4 to 13 prums®

Robbery
VGCSA - sale/distribution/intent to sell Schedule Tor IT drugs

2nd offense

LEVEL VI

Aggravated Child Molestation
Aggravated Sodomy
Cocaine-related violations of GCSA-200 w 399 grums®

Kidnapping no ransom, no injury
Muarijuana-related violations of GCSA-2,000) 10 9,999 pounds*

Opiate-related violations of GCSA-14 to 27 grams*
VGCSA - sale/distribution/intent to sell Schedule Tor 11 drugs

3rd offense
Voluntary Manslaughter

LEVEL VII

Armed Robbery - sentence not Life
Cocaine-related violations GCSA-400 grams or more*
Kidnapping - for ransom qr with injury, sentence not Life
Marijuana-related violations GCSA 10,000 pounds or morc*
Opiate-related violations of GCSA 28 grams or more*
Rape - sentence not Life
RICO Act

*Bascd on the gross weight of any mixture containing a

controlled substance.

3
a
l
a
n
a

x
d
n
a

3
!
t

*
R
e
r
e
e
n

e
s
e

Zi
o

te
t

A
&
E

STATE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES
PAROLE DECISION GUIDELINES

NOTICE: THE BOARD SPECIFICALLY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION UNDER GEOR-
GIALAW TO DENY PAROLE EVEN THOUGH GUIDELINES CRITERIA AREMET BY AN INMATE. ITISNOT THE
INTENTION OF THE BOARD TO CREATE A "LIBERTY INTEREST" OF THE TYPE DESCRIBED IN GREENHOLTZ
VS. NEBRASKA PENAL INMATES 442 US 1 (1979).

Parole Decision Guidelines help the Board make a more consistent, soundly based, prompt, and explainable parole decision.
Guidelines help the Board decide on a Tenfative Parole Month for the inmate or decide that the inmate will complete his
sentence without parole, When making decisions, the Board may depart from the Guidelines recommendation and make an

independent decision using the full discretion given it under Georgia Law. The length of the prison sentence imposed by the
court will be considered in establishing a Tentative Parole Month,

GUIDELINES RECOMMENDED MONTHS TO SERVE: Read across the Crime Severity Level and down from the Parole
Success Likelihood Score to find the Guidelines'recommended months to serve. For Crime Severity Levels V, VIand VII,
the Guidelines recommendation will be one-third of the court-imposed sentence length or the grid recommendation, whichever
is greater. The Board, using its discretion in specific cases, may depart from the Guidelines recommendation,

PAROLE SUCCESS LIKELIHOOD SCORE

CRIME =
SEVERITY EXCELLENT GOOD AVERAGE FAIR POOR
LEVEL 13-20 11-12 9-10 6-8 0-5

If the Board has agreed with the Guidelines Recommendation and the inmate believes the Crime Severity Level or any Parole

Success Factor has been scored incorrectly he/she may ask the Board, within 30 days, to recompute the scores. The Board will
consider any verifiable information submitted to substantiate the request, Such requests may be submitted in any written form
and should be directed to the Parole Guidelines Director, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Floyd Veterans Building, Fifth

Floor East, 2 Martin Luther King, Jr, Drive, S.E., Atlanta, GA 30334,

If the Board's tentative decision is to depart from the Guidelines recommendation and the number of months to serve is more
than three years beyond the Guidelines recommendation, the case will be reviewed at the Guidelines recommendation and cach
three years thereafter,

Institutional conduct has not been evaluated at this time, The Board expects the inmate to use his/her time in confinement in
a constructive manner, Exemplary conduct may result in a parole release prior to the scheduled release month, Institutional
misconduct will result in a delay in a parole release or a decision not to parole,

Rev, 191

e
r

eo
A e
t
a
in

3
2

SU
L.

ar
il

A
TU

F
R
A

SA
H

TE
A

.
ot

r
e
e
s
e

B
s

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Attorney's Working Files Vol. 1 of 5 (Redacted)

Impact area

Topic

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorney

Organizations

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in