Davis v. State, A18A0901
Decision Date | 24 October 2018 |
Docket Number | A18A0901 |
Citation | 820 S.E.2d 791,347 Ga.App. 757 |
Parties | DAVIS v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Jennifer Jayne Campbell, Atlanta, for Appellant.
Julia Anne Fessenden Slater, Ray Winston Daniel, for Appellee.
Dewey Davis appeals the trial court’s partial denial of his plea in bar, arguing that the State may not prosecute him for certain 1996 crimes because the statute of limitation has run. We find, however, that a plea in bar is not the proper mechanism for Davis to challenge his pre-indictment detention and, thus, we affirm.
When we review State v. Bair , 303 Ga. App. 183, 692 S.E.2d 806 (2010) (citations omitted).
The trial court found that in 1996, a woman was the victim of a rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated assault, and burglary. Although the trial court did not so find, Davis and the State agree that the crimes occurred on June 4, 1996. The alleged perpetrator was unknown until March 2009, when Davis was identified by DNA evidence. The parties agree that Davis was incarcerated when he was identified, but that he was released from prison in June 2016, and since then has been held on these subsequent charges in the Muscogee County Jail. He has not been indicted.
Davis filed a plea in bar, alleging that the state was barred from prosecuting him for any charges arising from the 1996 crime because the statute of limitation had run. The superior court ruled that the state could not prosecute Davis for aggravated assault or burglary because the four-year statute of limitation had run, but that the state could prosecute Davis for rape and aggravated sodomy because the statute of limitation on those charges had not run.1 We granted Davis’ application for interlocutory appeal, and this appeal followed.
In related enumerations of error, Davis contends that the trial court erred in denying his plea in bar as to the rape and aggravated sodomy charges. We disagree.
A special plea in bar is "[a] plea that, rather than addressing the merits and denying the facts alleged, sets up some extrinsic fact showing why a criminal defendant cannot be tried for the offense charged ." (Emphasis supplied.) Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). OCGA § 17-7-110 provides, "[a]ll pretrial motions, including demurrers and special pleas, shall be filed within ten days after the date of arraignment, unless the time for filing is extended by the court." (Emphasis supplied). Here, there has been no arraignment. Although Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.1 states that "special pleas shall be made and filed at or before the time set by law[,]" the fact remains that there can be no challenge to an indictment through a special plea in bar until there is an indictment filed. (Emphasis supplied).
That is not to say that individuals who allege they are being illegally detained are without recourse to challenge the actions of the State prior to being indicted. A writ of habeas corpus is employed "to ensure that [a] person’s imprisonment or detention is not illegal." Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). See OCGA § 9-14-1 (a) (). The purpose of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not to correct errors of fact, but to determine whether a petitioner’s constitutional rights have been violated. Herrera v. Collins , 506 U.S. 390, 400, 113 S.Ct. 853, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993). Habeas corpus is a civil proceeding and does not function "to determine the guilt or innocence of one accused of crime." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Paulk v. Sexton , 203 Ga. 82, 82 (2), 45 S.E.2d 768 (1947). Instead, "[a] writ of habeas corpus looks only to the lawfulness of the present confinement." Balkcom v. Hurst , 220 Ga. 405, 405, 139 S.E.2d 306 (1964).
Because Davis alleges that he is being unlawfully detained before the indictment against him has been filed, the proper remedy is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Edvalson v. State , 339 Ga. App. 348, 352, 793 S.E.2d 545 (2016) () . See e. g. Jones v. Grimes , 219 Ga. 585, 587 (1) (b), 134 S.E.2d 790 (1964) ( ). That is not the avenue taken by Davis so far; consequently, the trial court did not err in denying Davis’s plea in bar because that was not the proper mechanism to challenge his detention. In so holding, we express no opinion as to the legality of Davis’ detention or the merits of his argument that the statute of limitations has expired on the prosecution at issue here.
Judgment affirmed.
Davis is being held—but has not been indicted for—a rape and aggravated sodomy that occurred in 1996. The seven-year statute of limitation has expired. His plea in bar was a proper way to challenge his incarceration and was not premature. So the trial court erred in denying it.
I agree with the majority that the Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of "plea in bar" is on point: A plea in bar is a plea "that seeks to defeat the ... prosecutor’s action completely and permanently." Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). More particularly, a special plea in bar is "[a] plea that, rather than addressing the merits and denying the facts alleged, sets up some extrinsic fact showing why a criminal defendant cannot be tried for the offense charged ." Id. (Emphasis added.)
So the issue before us turns on whether Davis has been "charged." He has. A person who has been arrested has been "charged." See OCGA § 17-4-41 () (emphasis added); OCGA § 17-7-23 (b) () (emphasis added); Jackson v. State , 225 Ga. 39, 42-43, 165 S.E.2d 711 (1969) ().
According to the majority, Davis’s sole remedy is habeas corpus. I agree that habeas is an available remedy. But it is only a partial remedy.
Because the statute of limitation has expired, Davis is entitled to a permanent bar against prosecution of him for these crimes. That is what a plea in bar is for. See Jenkins v. State , 278 Ga. 598, 604 S.E.2d 789 (2004) ( ).
Contrary to the majority, the writ of habeas corpus is not a sufficient remedy. Such a writ would not address the legality of future prosecutions. Habeas corpus "is instituted for the sole purpose of having the person restrained of his liberty produced before the judge, in order that the cause of his detention may be inquired into and his status fixed." Simmons v. Ga. Iron & Coal Co. , 117 Ga. 305, 310, 43 S.E. 780 (1903). "Stynchcombe v. Hardy , 228 Ga. 130, 131 (1), 184 S.E.2d 356 (1971) (citations omitted; emphasis added). "[T]he judgment does not fix the rights of any one interested, further than to declare that the person detained must be restored to liberty." Simmons , 117 Ga. at 310, 43 S.E. 780.
In declaring Davis’s plea in bar premature, the majority invents a requirement not supported by existing law. OCGA § 17-7-110 says nothing about a date before which a motion may not be filed. It provides, "All pretrial motions, including demurrers and special pleas, shall be filed within ten days after the date of arraignment, unless the time for filing is extended by the court." Neither does Uniform Superior Court Rule 31. It provides, "All motions, demurrers, and special pleas shall be made and filed at or before the time set by law unless time therefor is extended by the judge in writing prior to trial." (emphasis added).
I have found no cases suggesting that a plea in bar is premature if filed before indictment. On the contrary, in State v. Dempsey , 290 Ga. 763, 765 (1), 727 S.E.2d 670 (2012), our Supreme Court held that "[u]nder the plain language of [ OCGA § 17-7-110 ], any pretrial motion will be considered timely if made before ten days after the date of the arraignment." (Emphasis added). OCGA § 17-7-110 establishes the deadline by which a pretrial motion must be filed; it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Duvall v. Cronic
... ... home address was also the "principal office address" listed for K & J with the Secretary of State. Based on this evidence, and the lack of any evidence that Cronic had "received and ignored notices ... ...
-
Schrader v. State
...and to protect him from double jeopardy.") (citation and punctuation footnote omitted).4 See generally Davis v. State , 347 Ga. App. 757, 757, 820 S.E.2d 791 (2018) ("A special plea in bar is ‘[a] plea that, rather than addressing the merits and denying the facts alleged, sets up some extri......
-
Schrader v. State
... ... filed before trial." ... Schrader's ... position lacks merit, however, in light of Davis v ... State, 307 Ga. 784 (838 S.E.2d 233) (2020). In that ... case, the Supreme Court recited that "[u]nder Georgia ... law, a ... ...
-
Davis v. State
...trial court's denial of his plea in bar for the charges of aggravated sodomy and rape to the Court of Appeals.3 In Davis v. State , 347 Ga. App. 757, 820 S.E.2d 791 (2018), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Davis's plea in bar. The court, however, did not address Dav......