Dubose v. Hodges, S05A2105.
| Decision Date | 17 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. S05A2105.,S05A2105. |
| Citation | 625 S.E.2d 745,280 Ga. 152 |
| Parties | DUBOSE v. HODGES. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Mandamus. Superior Court of Muscogee County. Frank J. Jordan, Jr., J.
Joseph Wiley Jr., Columbus, for Appellant.
Christopher S. Brasher, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Kay Baker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.
In this mandamus action, the issue is whether the trial court erred by failing to order the appellee, a special prosecutor, to re-present a criminal case to a grand jury.1 The trial court did not err, as mandamus relief is not available to compel a discretionary act,2 and as the appellee has broad discretion not to re-present the criminal case to a grand jury.3 Finally, although Dubose contends that the trial court had the authority to review and correct the grand jury's and district attorney's actions under OCGA § 15-6-8(4),4 that Code section only authorizes review by a proper writ, such as mandamus or certiorari,5 and, as we have already held, Dubose is not entitled to relief pursuant to his writ of mandamus.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
1. The first grand jury returned a no-bill and was discharged on November 30, 2004.
3. See State v. Wooten, 273 Ga. 529, 531-532, 543 S.E.2d 721 (2001); State v. Hanson, 249 Ga. 739, 742-744, 295 S.E.2d 297 (1982) ().
4. OCGA § 15-6-8(4) provides, in relevant part, that superior
courts have the authority "[t]o exercise a general supervision over all inferior tribunals and to review and correct, in the manner prescribed by law, the judgments of: (A) Magistrates; (B) Municipal courts or councils; (C) Any inferior judicature; (D) Any person exercising judicial powers . . . ."
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. Richmond Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...over all inferior tribunals,” but only when such “review [is] by a proper writ, such as mandamus or certiorari.” Dubose v. Hodges, 280 Ga. 152, 152–153, 625 S.E.2d 745 (2006). No such review process was followed here. 7. Although the superior court stated that efforts to collect upon the ju......
-
Mayo v. Head, S06A0549.
...evidence, through an extraordinary motion for a new trial.5 Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. 1. See Dubose v. Hodges, 280 Ga. 152, 152, 625 S.E.2d 745 (2006) (mandamus will not lie to compel special prosecutor to re-present a criminal case to a grand jury); State v. Wooten, 273 G......
- Porter-Martin v. Martin, S05A2090.