Grier v. Peed, S03A0021.
| Decision Date | 27 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. S03A0021.,S03A0021. |
| Citation | 578 S.E.2d 861,276 Ga. 521 |
| Parties | GRIER v. PEED et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Barry L. Grier, Trion, for appellant.
F. Gates Peed, John R. Turner, Statesboro, William E. Woodrum, Jr., Millen, Rebecca S. Mick, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
After being convicted of voluntary manslaughter, Barry Grier purported to file several pro se motions, despite the appointment of post-trial counsel. He subsequently brought this mandamus action against all three of the superior court judges in the circuit (Appellees), seeking to compel them to enter orders regarding those motions. They recused themselves, and the designated judge dismissed the application for mandamus, finding that Grier received the relief sought and that the issues are now moot. Grier appeals pro se from this order.
"Mandamus will not be granted when it is manifest that the writ would, for any cause, be nugatory or fruitless...." OCGA § 9-6-26. Thus, mandamus Dean v. Gober, 272 Ga. 20, 21(1), 524 S.E.2d 722 (2000). Because Appellees ruled on every motion specified in Grier's petition for mandamus, the trial court correctly dismissed the petition as moot. Baez v. Miller, 266 Ga. 211, 465 S.E.2d 671 (1996). Moreover, Appellees were not ever required to enter orders on the pro se motions, because Grier filed them at a time when he was represented by counsel. Schaefer v. State, 238 Ga.App. 594(1), 519 S.E.2d 248 (1999). Since Appellees were under no duty to rule on those motions, the extraordinary relief which Grier requested was not authorized at any time. Scott v. McLaughlin, 258 Ga. 407, 408, 369 S.E.2d 257 (1988).
Now that Appellees have entered orders on all motions, Grier does not ignore those orders, but attempts to attack them in his appellate brief. Indeed, he primarily contends that the order denying the amended motion for new trial in the criminal proceeding is void. However, he filed a notice of appeal in that case and may pursue such issues in the context of that criminal appeal. Under these circumstances, " Chandler v. Davis, 269 Ga. 727, 728, 504 S.E.2d 440 (1998). See also Daker v. Ray, 275 Ga. 205, 206(1), 563 S.E.2d 429 (2002) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Titelman v. Stedman
...reviewing the propriety of that ruling. Barber Fertilizer Co. v. Chason, 265 Ga. 497, 458 S.E.2d 631 (1995). See also Grier v. Peed, 276 Ga. 521, 522, 578 S.E.2d 861 (2003); Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 273 Ga. 431, 433-434(1), 543 S.E.2d 16 (2001). However, mandamus is an avail......
- Williams v. State
-
Harris v. State, S04A1793.
...mandamus judgment rendered against him. In any event, the superior court correctly found that the petition was moot. Grier v. Peed, 276 Ga. 521, 578 S.E.2d 861 (2003). 2. Harris contends that the superior court erred in accepting his guilty plea and sentencing him as a recidivist under OCGA......
-
State v. Jackson and the Explosion of Liability for Felony Murder - Brian E. Brupbacher
...definition of causation; however, overall these 65. Williams v. State, 276 Ga. 384, 385, 578 S.E.2d 858, 860 (2003). 66. Id. at 386, 578 S.E.2d at 861. 67. See, e.g., Huntley v. State, 271 Ga. 227, 230, 518 S.E.2d 890, 893 (1999). 68. 271 Ga. 449, 519 S.E.2d 921 (1999). 69. Id. at 451, 519 ......
-
Wills, Trusts, Guardianships, and Fiduciary Administration - Mary F. Radford
...brother without notifying the first brother. Id. at 468-69, 578 S.E.2d at 860-61. 67. Id. at 466, 578 S.E.2d at 859. 68. Id. at 471, 578 S.E.2d at 861. 69. Id. (quoting Liner v. North, 188 Ga. App. 677, 678, 373 S.E.2d 846, 848 (1988)). 70. The term "alternative dispute resolution" is defin......