Earp v. Boylan, S90A0195
Decision Date | 20 April 1990 |
Docket Number | No. S90A0195,S90A0195 |
Parties | EARP, Commr. v. BOYLAN. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Terry L. Long, Atlanta, Ga., for earp.
Merck K. Smith, Casper Rich, Rich, Bass, Kidd & Witcher, Decatur, Ga., for Boylan.
Appellee Boylan was convicted of three separate offenses of driving with a suspended license between February 1, 1984, and October 18, 1985. The Department of Public Safety (Department) thereafter declared him an habitual violator pursuant to OCGA § 40-5-58, and revoked his driver's license on December 6, 1985. The record shows that the Department issued appellee a probationary license so that he may drive to and from work.
On December 9, 1988, appellee filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking relief from the revocation of his driver's license. The habeas court found that appellee did not knowingly waive his right to counsel at any of his three trials for driving with a suspended license. The habeas court determined that the three criminal dispositions which had resulted in appellee's habitual violator status had substantially restrained appellee's liberty and therefore he was entitled to habeas relief. The habeas court ordered the Department to rescind appellee's status as an habitual violator, and to return his driver's license.
At the same time the habeas court entered a separate order denying the Department's motion to dismiss appellee's habeas petition for failure to timely file it in accordance with OCGA § 40-13-33(b). The habeas court determined that OCGA § 40-13-33(a) and (b) unconstitutionally suspends the writ of habeas corpus.
1. The habeas court found that OCGA § 40-13-33(a) and (b) suspend the writ of habeas corpus in violation of U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. IX, Cl. II and Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XV.
a) In Hardison v. Martin, 254 Ga. 719, 721, 334 S.E.2d 161 (1985), we held that
one not in physical custody may petition for habeas corpus to challenge the revocation of his driver's license on the ground that the underlying sentence upon which the revocation is based is void for a reason not appearing on the face of the record.
In response to Hardison the legislature enacted OCGA § 40-13-33. Subsection (a) of this statute provides that any habeas corpus challenge which may be filed to a misdemeanor traffic offense must be filed within 180 days of conviction. Under subsection (b), where, as in this case, the conviction challenged became final prior to March 28, 1986, the habeas petition must have been filed within 180 days of March 28, 1986.
There are numerous instances in which this court has construed the Georgia Habeas Corpus Act, OCGA § 9-14-1 et seq. to provide greater protections than the Federal Constitution requires. See, e.g., McDuffie v. Jones, 248 Ga. 544, 545 fn. 1, 283 S.E.2d 601 (1981); Zant v. Cook, 259 Ga. 299, 379 S.E.2d 780 (1989). It is likewise clear that the holding of Hardison goes beyond federal constitutional and statutory habeas corpus requirements. The federal courts have uniformly held that the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, does not give them jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition where a petitioner who is not in custody alleges that his liberty has been restrained because his driver's license has been revoked or suspended. Westberry v. Keith, 434 F.2d 623 (C.A. 5 1970) 1; Harts v. State of Indiana, 732 F.2d 95 (C.A. 7 1984); Whorley v. Brilhart, 359 F.Supp. 539 (E.D.Va.1973).
Because Hardison v. Martin provides greater habeas corpus protection than is required by the United States Constitution, we hold that the legislature may place a procedural limitation on that protection without suspending the writ within the meaning of U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. IX, Cl. II.
b) As the Department points out in its brief, there are a number of recognized procedural limitations on the writ of habeas corpus which do not have the effect of suspending it in violation of the Georgia Constitution. See OCGA § 9-14-51 ( ); Reed v. Hopper, 235 Ga. 298, 219 S.E.2d 409 (1975) ( ); Valenzuela v. Newsome, 253 Ga. 793, 325 S.E.2d 370 (1985) ( ); Black v. Hardin, 255 Ga. 239, 336 S.E.2d 754 (1985) ( ); Patterson v. Earp, 257 Ga. 729, 363 S.E.2d 248 (1988) ( ).
We hold that the procedural limitations of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walker v. State, A91A0040
...Thus, the 180-day limitation is not restricted only to habeas corpus challenges (as that class is further defined in Earp v. Boylan, 260 Ga. 112, 390 S.E.2d 577) actually brought under Chapter 14 of Title 9, but applies to "any challenge" (except those categories of habeas corpus challenges......
-
State v. Welch, A91A0967
...even though not in physical custody, may challenge a misdemeanor traffic conviction by petition for habeas corpus. Earp v. Boylan, 260 Ga. 112, 390 S.E.2d 577 (1990); OCGA § ...
-
Earp v. Brown
...did apply to this action, it is unconstitutional as a suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. This Court's decision in Earp v. Boylan, 260 Ga. 112, 390 S.E.2d 577 (1990) controls this issue adversely to 2(a). Brown argues that OCGA § 40-13-33 does not apply to his habeas action because the......