consequences waiver in Georgia

2020The right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails.” (footnotes and punctuation omitted)); Owens v. State, 298 Ga. 813, 814 (2) ( 783 SE2d 611 ) (2016) (“Both the federal and state constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant the right to self-representation.

2020The right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails.” (footnotes and punctuation omitted)); Owens v. State, 298 Ga. 813, 814 (2) ( 783 SE2d 611 ) (2016) (“Both the federal and state constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant the right to self-representation.

2008See Welbon, supra, 278 Ga. at 313 (2) (Afinding of ineffectiveness will not result from trial counsel’s strategy or tactics, if they were reasonable at the time.). *119 (e) Finally, Defrancisco contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel neither filed a written waiver of right to jury trial nor advised him of the consequences of such a waiver.

2008See Welbon, supra, 278 Ga. at 313 (2) (Afinding of ineffectiveness will not result from trial counsel’s strategy or tactics, if they were reasonable at the time.). *119 (e) Finally, Defrancisco contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel neither filed a written waiver of right to jury trial nor advised him of the consequences of such a waiver.

2001The costs of allowing a parolee to avoid the consequences of his violation are compounded by the fact that parolees (particularly those who have already committed parole violations) are more likely to commit future criminal offenses than are average citizens. [Cit.] Indeed, this is the very premise behind the system of close parole supervision. [Cit.] Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation v. Scott, 524 U. S. 357, 365 (II) (118 SC 2014, 141 LE2d 344) (1998) (holding that parole boards do not have to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment).

2001Strict application of the hearsay rule, as developed by statutes and judicial decisions, is, like the exclusionary rule, “incompatible with the traditionally flexible, administrative procedures of parole revocation.” Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation v. Scott, supra at 365 (II). “[Traditional rules of evidence generally do not apply. [Cit.] Nor are these proceedings entirely adversarial, as they are designed to be ‘ “predictive and discretionary” as well as factfinding.’ [Cit.]” Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation v. Scott, supra at 366 (II).

2000In his first enumeration of error, Brooks, who has secured legal counsel on appeal, contends that the trial court failed to make a determination on the record that he knowingly waived his right to legal representation, with an understanding of the consequences of such waiver, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Clarke v. Zant, 247 Ga. 194, 196-197 , 275 S.E.2d 49 (1981).

2000In his first enumeration of error, Brooks, who has secured legal counsel on appeal, contends that the trial court failed to make a determination on the record that he knowingly waived his right to legal representation, with an understanding of the consequences of such waiver, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Clarke v. Zant, 247 Ga. 194, 196-197 , 275 S.E.2d 49 (1981).

1993Carter v. State, 257 Ga. 510, 513 ( 361 SE2d 175 ) (1987).

1993Carter v. State, 257 Ga. 510, 513 ( 361 SE2d 175 ) (1987).

1979Burns v. Great A & P Tea Co., 105 Ga. App. 823, 825 ( 125 SE2d 687 ).

1979Burns v. Great A & P Tea Co., 105 Ga. App. 823, 825 ( 125 SE2d 687 ).

1977Under such cases as Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (58 SC 1019, 82 LE 1461); Johnson v. State, 139 Ga. App. 829, 831 (1) ( 229 SE2d 772 ); Campbell v. State, 128 Ga. App. 74, 76 (1), supra; Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U. S. 708, 723 (68 SC 316, 92 LE 309), we could not hold there was an intelligent waiver of counsel as there is a presumption against waiver which must be overcome and clearly shown by the record.

1977Under such cases as Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (58 SC 1019, 82 LE 1461); Johnson v. State, 139 Ga. App. 829, 831 (1) ( 229 SE2d 772 ); Campbell v. State, 128 Ga. App. 74, 76 (1), supra; Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U. S. 708, 723 (68 SC 316, 92 LE 309), we could not hold there was an intelligent waiver of counsel as there is a presumption against waiver which must be overcome and clearly shown by the record.

1977Under such cases as Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (58 SC 1019, 82 LE 1461); Johnson v. State, 139 Ga. App. 829, 831 (1) ( 229 SE2d 772 ); Campbell v. State, 128 Ga. App. 74, 76 (1), supra; Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U. S. 708, 723 (68 SC 316, 92 LE 309), we could not hold there was an intelligent waiver of counsel as there is a presumption against waiver which must be overcome and clearly shown by the record.

1977Under such cases as Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (58 SC 1019, 82 LE 1461); Johnson v. State, 139 Ga. App. 829, 831 (1) ( 229 SE2d 772 ); Campbell v. State, 128 Ga. App. 74, 76 (1), supra; Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U. S. 708, 723 (68 SC 316, 92 LE 309), we could not hold there was an intelligent waiver of counsel as there is a presumption against waiver which must be overcome and clearly shown by the record.