Spears v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 04 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 43990,43990 |
| Citation | 256 Ga. 518,350 S.E.2d 468 |
| Parties | SPEARS v. JOHNSON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Scott L. Ballard, Ballard, Slade & Ballard, Fayetteville, for Jesse Lee Spears, Jr.
Johnnie L. Caldwell, Jr., Dist. Atty., James E. Sherrill, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fayetteville, for Randall Johnson.
Jesse Lee Spears, Jr., was arrested on July 18, 1986, for violating OCGA § 16-10-73. 1 On July 20, 1986, Spears was taken before a magistrate and advised of his constitutional rights. Bond in the amount of $10,000 was set at that time. Counsel was appointed for Spears on July 28, 1986. On September 3, 1986, Spears filed a petition for habeas corpus, maintaining he was entitled to be released because he had not received a commitment hearing to which he was entitled under OCGA § 17-4-26. A hearing on Spears's habeas petition was held on September 5, 1986, at which time the habeas court reserved decision until briefs could be submitted. On September 10, 1986, the grand jury indicted Spears for violation of OCGA § 16-10-73. Subsequently the habeas court entered an order finding that since Spears had been indicted, the issue of a commitment hearing was rendered moot. The habeas court, therefore, denied Spears's petition for relief. We affirm.
Each error enumerated by Spears relates to the issue of whether he was denied his right to a commitment hearing under OCGA § 17-4-26. The issue of whether Spears was entitled to habeas relief on this ground prior to indictment, see McClure v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 45, 214 S.E.2d 503 (1975), is now moot because Spears has been indicted by the grand jury. First National Bank, etc., Co. v. State, 237 Ga. 112, 227 S.E.2d 20 (1976). The "purpose of a commitment hearing is simply to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty of the crime charged, and if so, to bind him over for indictment by the grand jury." State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54, 222 S.E.2d 343 (1976); OCGA § 17-7-23. Once the grand jury has returned an indictment against the accused, probable cause has been found, and the state is not required to make an additional showing of probable cause. First National Bank, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
1 OCGA § 16-10-73 provides, "Any person except an attorney of record who shall acknowledge or cause to be acknowledged, in any of the courts of the state or before any authorized officer, any recognizance, bail, or judgment in the name of any person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. State, S92P0087
...Ga. 110(5), 416 S.E.2d 78 (1992). 13. A criminal defendant is not entitled to a post-indictment committal hearing. Spears v. Johnson, 256 Ga. 518, 350 S.E.2d 468 (1986). See also Pruitt v. State, 258 Ga. 583, 585(2), 373 S.E.2d 192 14. The offense of feticide is defined in OCGA § 16-5-80(a)......
-
McRae v. State
...411 S.E.2d 750 (1991). 20. See id.; Copeland v. State, 248 Ga.App. 346, 349(2)(b)(i), 546 S.E.2d 351 (2001). 21. See Spears v. Johnson, 256 Ga. 518, 350 S.E.2d 468 (1986); McClarity v. State, 234 Ga. App. 348, 351(3)(a), 506 S.E.2d 392 ...
-
State v. Godfrey
...because once indictment takes place probable cause has been established and a preliminary hearing serves no purpose. Spears v. Johnson, 256 Ga. 518, 350 S.E.2d 468 (1986). Thus, pretermitting the question whether dismissal of the indictment may ever be a proper remedy for failure to hold a ......
-
State v. Griffin, S97A1352
...rejected the conclusion that there is probable cause to believe the accused committed the crime in question. See Spears v. Johnson, 256 Ga. 518, 350 S.E.2d 468 (1986). With no probable cause shown, further prosecution suggests harassment regardless of whether prosecution has arisen in diffe......