Brinkley v. State

The trial court did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to due process in failing to sua sponte assess the defendant's competency, since no evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was competent.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Jonas A. Brinkley was found guilty by a jury of kidnapping with bodily injury by rape against a female victim; rape of the female victim; kidnapping against a male victim; and armed robbery against the male victim. The rape conviction was vacated by operation of law by merger into the conviction for kidnapping with bodily injury. Brinkley was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for kidnapping with bodily injury OCGA § 16-5-40 d 4; 20 years to serve consecutive for kidnapping; and 20 years to serve concurrent for armed robbery. Brinkley appealed his convictions and sentences to the Georgia Supreme Court claiming his constitutional rights were violated in a variety of ways. Among other claims, Brinkley contended that the life sentence violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because he was only 14 years old at the time of the offenses, and that his due process rights were violated because his competency to stand trial was not assessed before he stood trial in the superior court at only 15 years of age.1 The Supreme Court transferred the appeal to this Court on the basis that the cruel and unusual punishment constitutional claim was not timely raised and was waived, and that, because the other constitutional claims “all involve the application of well-established constitutional law to the particular facts of this case . . . jurisdiction over those issues is also properly in the Court of Appeals.” Brinkley v. State, 291 Ga. 195, 195-196, 199-200 728 SE2d 598 2012. For the following reasons, we affirm.

1. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.

Brinkley v. State

The trial court did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to due process in failing to sua sponte assess the defendant's competency, since no evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was competent.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report