Opinion
60760.
DECIDED JANUARY 16, 1981.
Motor vehicle theft. Dougherty Superior Court. Before Judge Horne, Senior Judge.
William A. Erwin, for appellant.
William S. Lee, District Attorney, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of motor vehicle theft and attempting to elude a police officer. We affirm.
1. Appellant asserts that the "failure to appoint counsel until after indictment deprived Appellant, an indigent Defendant confined in jail, of the opportunity to obtain a commitment hearing, a valued and important right, in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Whether Appellant is correct in his contention that, had he been able to retain counsel, he would have obtained a commitment hearing, is a matter of speculation. In any event, "a preliminary hearing is not a required step in a felony prosecution and ... once an indictment is obtained there is no judicial oversight or review of the decision to prosecute because of any failure to hold a commitment hearing... [W]e [will not] overturn a conviction... because a commitment hearing was denied appellant." State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55 ( 222 S.E.2d 343) (1976); Albert v. State, 152 Ga. App. 708, 709 ( 263 S.E.2d 685) (1979).
2. Appellant also contends that the "failure to appoint counsel until after indictment deprived Appellant, an indigent Defendant confined in jail, of effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in that Appellant was unable to obtain a commitment hearing, the single most effective means of preparing his defense." However, "[t]he `... purpose of a commitment hearing is simply to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty of the crime charged, and if so, to bind him over for indictment by the grand jury. Code § 27-407.' Jackson v. State, 225 Ga. 39, 42 ( 165 S.E.2d 711) (1969)." State v. Middlebrooks, supra at 54; Day v. State, 237 Ga. 538, 539 ( 228 S.E.2d 913) (1976). We therefore conclude that the alleged loss of discovery occasioned by the failure to conduct a commitment hearing is not a legally recognizable basis for reversal.
Judgment affirmed. McMurray, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.