Hawes v. State, 281 Ga. 822

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the denial of James Huston Hawes's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that the record did not establish that Hawes was advised of, or knowingly waived, his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination before entering his guilty pleas, as required under Boykin v. Alabama.

Holdings

1. A guilty plea is constitutionally valid only when the record establishes that the defendant understood and knowingly waived the three Boykin rights: the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront one's accusers. Because the record did not show that Hawes was advised of or waived the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the habeas court erred in finding that his pleas passed constitutional scrutiny.
2. A trial court need not use precisely defined language or magic words to explain the Boykin rights, but the record must show that the defendant was informed of the rights in a reasonably intelligible manner and had a full understanding of the rights being waived and the consequences of the plea.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the habeas court erred in finding that Hawes's guilty pleas satisfied constitutional requirements when the record did not show that he was advised of and knowingly waived his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
2. Whether informing Hawes that he could testify at trial adequately advised him of his separate Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination during the plea proceeding.

Disposition

reversed