Mungin v. St. Lawrence, S07A0193.
| Decision Date | 26 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. S07A0193.,S07A0193. |
| Citation | 281 Ga. 671,641 S.E.2d 541 |
| Parties | MUNGIN v. ST. LAWRENCE, Sheriff et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Charles Mungin, Savannah, pro se.
R. Jonathan Hart, Emily Elizabeth Garrard, Savannah, for St. Lawrence, Sheriff, et al.
Charles Mungin is the defendant in a pending criminal action. Acting pro se, he filed a pre-trial habeas corpus petition. After reviewing the pleading, the habeas court found that it failed to allege any viable ground for relief. Accordingly, the habeas court denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the issues Mungin raised therein could be asserted in the pending criminal prosecution. Mungin appeals from the habeas court's dismissal order.
Mitchell v. Forrester, 247 Ga. 622, 623, 278 S.E.2d 368 (1981). Here, the habeas corpus court noted that all of the issues Mungin raised in his petition relate to matters that he can assert in the context of his pending prosecution.
"Where the proceedings under which the petitioner is detained are still pending undisposed of, and the ordinary established procedure is still available to him, the orderly procedure by trial and appeal should not be interfered with by a writ of habeas corpus [cits.], there being another adequate remedy [cits.], and no necessity for issuance of this high extraordinary writ [cit.]"
Jackson v. Lowry, 170 Ga. 755, 756-757, 154 S.E. 228 (1930). Mungin contends that this principle does not apply here, because one of the grounds upon which he sought habeas corpus relief was that he stands acquitted because of the State's failure to comply with his demand for a speedy trial under OCGA § 17-7-170.
However, the issue of whether Mungin's prosecution is barred pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-170 is a statutory defense which he can raise in the trial court where the criminal action is pending. That claim is not relevant to the validity of his current pretrial detention, and relates exclusively to the asserted illegality of any future post-conviction imprisonment. " Mullennix v. Balkcom, 213 Ga. 490, 99 S.E.2d 832 (1957), overruled on other grounds, Hollis v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. Freeman
...issues must be addressed in the trial court and on appeal, not by means of a pre-trial petition for habeas corpus. Mungin v. St. Lawrence, 281 Ga. 671, 641 S.E.2d 541 (2007). Judgment All the Justices concur. 1. Johnson v. Barnes, supra, was decided prior to the enactment of OCGA § 5-6-35(a......
- Johnston v. Johnston
-
Jackson v. Bittick
...282 Ga. 180, 182(2), 646 S.E.2d 65 (2007). See also Massey v. St. Lawrence, 284 Ga. 780(2), 671 S.E.2d 834 (2009); Mungin v. St. Lawrence, 281 Ga. 671, 641 S.E.2d 541 (2007). Accordingly, "the habeas court correctly dismissed Jackson's petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Cit......
- McCreary v. Martin, S07A0137.
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Gregory R. Miller
...see also Graves v. Graves, 239 Ga. 869, 869, 239 S.E.2d 35, 36-37 (1977). 140. 281 Ga. 666, 641 S.E.2d 538 (2007). 141. Id. at 668, 641 S.E.2d at 541. 142. Id. at 666, 641 S.E.2d at 539. 143. Id. at 666-67, 641 S.E.2d at 540. 144. Id. 145. Millner v. Millner, 260 Ga. 495, 497, 397 S.E.2d 28......