Plunkett v. Miller

• Decision Date: 21 December 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 5090.)
• Citation: 161 Ga. 466,131 S.E. 170
• Parties: PLUNKETT, Sheriff, . v. MILLER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

161 Ga. 466

131 S.E. 170

PLUNKETT, Sheriff, .

v.MILLER.

(No. 5090.)

Supreme Court of Georgia

Dec. 21, 1925.

.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Richmond County; A. L. Franklin, Judge.

Petition for a writ of habeas corpus by Mary Miller against J. T. Plunkett, Sheriff. Application was sustained and petitioner ordered discharged from custody, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Mary Miller, on July 16, 1924, pleaded guilty in the city court of Richmond county to a violation of the prohibition law (Laws 1907, p. 81, as amended by Laws 1915, p. 77, as amended by Laws 1917, p. 7), and she was sentenced to pay a fine of $100, to include the costs, and to work on the chain gang for the term of 12 months. The sentence further provided:

"That upon the immediate payment of the fine of $100 the sentence to work in the chain gang on the public roads of said county, or on such other public works as the county or state authorities may. employ the chain gang for the term of 12 months, will be suspended and the defendant paroled and permitted to serve said sentence outside the confines of the chain gang.upon condition that he [she] do not have in [her] possession or control in this state any alcoholic, spirituous, malt, or other intoxicating liquors, or any of the beverages, liquors, or drinks prohibited by law, and shall not violate any of the provisions of the prohibition laws of Georgia, said parole to continue as long as the above conditions are complied with. Should the said defendant violate any of the said conditions of said parole, such violation shall of itself revoke the parole hereby granted, and the sentence herein imposed shall immediately become operative."

The defendant was not placed in the custody of a probation officer. On June 6, 1925, she was arrested by a federal prohibition officer for violating the Prohibition Law. The judgment disposing of the habeas corpus proceeding recites that the federal prohibition officer found the defendant in possession of alcoholic liquors, and that the judge of the city court issued his warrant for arrest in order that he might determine why her parole should not be revoked. On June 7, 1925, the defendant went to Florida, and for this reason could not be arrested and brought before the judge of the city court in pursuance of said warrant. The defendant admitted that she was arrested on the night of June 6, 1925, being charged with violating the Prohibition Law, that she left on June 7, 1925, for Florida, and that she did not return to this state until July 14, 1925, at which time she appeared before the sheriff of Richmond county and gave bond. On June 8, 1925, the judge of the city court passed an order revoking the defendant's parole, and ordering that she serve the remainder of her sentence within the confines of the state farm at Milledgeville. This was done without the defendant being arrested and brought before the court, but during her absence in Florida, and without due examination during her presence in court. The defendant filed her petition for habeas corpus against the sheriff of Richmond county, in which she alleged the foregoing facts, and further alleged that she was being held by him under the order aforesaid revoking her parole; that said order was void because it was passed without due examination in her presence, and when she was absent, and without notice to her and opportunity to be heard thereon; and that for this reason she was being illegally restrained of her liberty and kept in custody without authority in law. The judge of ...