Opinion
19514.
SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 13, 1956.
DECIDED JANUARY 14, 1957.
Robbery by force. Before Judge Edwards. Elbert Superior Court. August 7, 1956.
Ed Ramsey, Pro se. Carey Skelton, Solicitor-General, Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Rubye G. Jackson, contra.
Notice of the escape from custody of the defendant, who was convicted of the offense of robbery by force, having been brought to this court by affidavit of the proper officer, and the defendant having made no response to the order of this court to furnish evidence of his surrender or recapture, so as to insure submission to the judgment of this court when rendered, the writ of error is dismissed. Gentry v. State, 91 Ga. 669 ( 17 S.E. 956).
Writ of error dismissed. All the Justices concur. Duckworth, C. J., concurs specially.
SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 13, 1956 — DECIDED JANUARY 14, 1957.
Ed Ramsey was convicted of robbery by force, and the judgment denying his motion for new trial was reversed by this court. Ramsey v. State 212 Ga. 381 ( 92 S.E.2d 866). On the second trial of the case, the jury returned a verdict of guilty without a recommendation of mercy. The defendant filed a motion for new trial, which was denied, and filed his bill of exceptions. The case was submitted to this court on briefs, the defendant representing himself.
Before a decision had been rendered in this court, it was brought to our attention by the Solicitor-General of the Northern Judicial Circuit that the defendant had escaped from jail and had become a fugitive from justice. The notice by the solicitor was accompanied by an affidavit by the sheriff and jailor of Elbert County, averring that the defendant had escaped from the jail of the county.
This court issued an order on December 7, 1956, directing the defendant to furnish evidence of his surrender or recapture by January 7, 1957. Copy of this order was mailed to the defendant in care of the sheriff and jailor of Elbert County. The defendant has furnished no evidence to this court of his surrender or recapture.
I concur in the judgment because of the case cited, and many others to the same effect, but I would prefer to overrule all such cases and decide the questions presented by this record. It is only in this manner that I can discharge fully the duties laid upon me by the Constitution and my oath to decide questions of law properly presented as the questions here are presented. But since the required number of the Justices to overrule those decisions can not be obtained, they are the controlling law of this State and I must follow them.