Moore v. Wheeler
| Decision Date | 26 January 1900 |
| Parties | MOORE v. WHEELER, Sheriff. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
One indicted and tried under an unconstitutional statute may even after final conviction, obtain his discharge from custody on a writ of habeas corpus.
Error from superior court, Paulding county; C. G. Janes, Judge.
Application of Abb Moore for a writ of habeas corpus, directed to B. F Wheeler, sheriff. From an order denying the writ, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
A. L Bartlett and L. M. Washington, for plaintiff in error.
W. T. Roberts, Sol. Gen., for defendant in error.
The grand jury of Paulding county returned an indictment against Moore, charging that on a day named he did, in that county, "unlawfully sell spirituous liquors, malt liquors and other intoxicating liquors." He entered a plea of guilty, and was sentenced. Subsequently he sued out a writ of habeas corpus, whereby he sought to be discharged from custody. In his application for the writ he alleged that the indictment was void because based upon the act of September 5, 1883 (Acts 1882-83, p. 570), prohibiting the sale of spirituous, malt, and other intoxicating liquors in the counties of Glascock and Paulding, and that this act was, for reasons alleged, unconstitutional. On the hearing the judge remanded the prisoner to custody, and of this he complains.
In Embry v. State (this day decided) ubi supra, the unconstitutionality of this statute was declared. As the indictment against Moore was evidently framed under this act, the sentence against him, though based upon a plea of guilty, was a mere nullity, and he ought to have been discharged. It seems to be now well settled that, where one is indicted and tried under an unconstitutional statute, he may, even after final conviction and sentence, obtain his discharge from custody on a writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 25 L.Ed. 717; Ex parte Clarke, 100 U.S. 399, 25 L.Ed. 715; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 4 S.Ct. 152, 28 L.Ed. 274; Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 6 S.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868; In re Jiebold (C. C.) 23 F. 791; In re Tie Loy (C. C.) 26 F. 611; In re Ah Jow (C. C.) 29 F. 181; In re Payson, 23 Kan. 757, 760; Ex parte Burnett, 30 Ala. 461; Ex parte Rollins, 80 Va. 314; Ex parte Rosenblatt, 19 Nev. 439, 14 P. 298; Ex parte Mato, 19 Tex.App. 112; Brown v. Duffus, 66 Iowa 193, 23 N.W. 396; Fisher v. McGirr, 1 Gray, 2; Whitcomb's Case, 120 Mass. 118. "An unconstitutional enactment is never a law; and, if there can be a case in which a conviction is illegal and without jurisdiction, it seems that such a case is presented when it appears either that there is no law making criminal the alleged crime, or authorizing its prosecution in the court wherein the sentence has been imposed." 2 Freem. Judgm. p. 1092, § 624. Judgment reversed.
All the justices concurring, except LITTLE and LEWIS,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
"garbage In, Garbage Out": the Litigation Implosion Over the Unconstitutional Organization and Jurisdiction of the City Court of Atlanta - Edward C. Brewer Iii
...has nothing to do with the existence or constitutionality of the statute creating the court. Id. 81. 122 Ga. at 177, 50 S.E. at 59. 82. 109 Ga. 62, 35 S.E. 116 (1900); accord Riley v. Garrett, 219 Ga. 345,133 S.E.2d 367 (1963). The court in Moore stated that: [a]n unconstitutional enactment......