Tumlinson v. Dix

• Decision Date: 16 June 2020
• Docket Number: S20A1277
• Citation: 309 Ga. 184,844 S.E.2d 765
• Parties: TUMLINSON v. DIX.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

309 Ga. 184

844 S.E.2d 765

TUMLINSON

v.DIX.

S20A1277

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: June 16, 2020

Jordan Kerry Van Matre, The Law Office of Jordan K. Van Matre, PC, 124 Atlanta Street, McDonough, Georgia 30253, Attorneys for the Appellant.

James R. Fortune, Jr., Beck, Owen & Murray, Wachovia Tower, Suite 600, 100 South Hill Street, Griffin, Georgia 30223, Marie Greene Broder, District Attorney, Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, P.O. Box 871, Thomaston, Georgia 30286, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Attorneys for the Appellee.

Ellington, Justice.

This Court granted Marcus Tumlinson's application for a discretionary appeal to consider whether the Superior Court of Spalding County erred in dismissing his petition for pre-trial habeas corpus relief without considering the merits of his claims or holding a hearing.¹ For the reasons that follow, we vacate the habeas court's dismissal order and remand the case to the habeas court with direction.

Tumlinson was arrested on May 19, 2019, and is in the custody of the respondent, Daryl Dix, Sheriff of Spalding County. Tumlinson was indicted on July 9, 2019, and charged with two counts of aggravated sexual battery, three counts of child molestation, and three counts of sexual battery against a child under the age of 16. Because Tumlinson was charged with the offense of aggravated sexual battery, he may obtain bail on that charge only before a superior court judge. OCGA § 17-6-1 (a) (8). On August 8, 2019, Tumlinson filed a motion with the trial court seeking bond; after a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the motion on September 10, 2019. The trial court thereafter denied Tumlinson's timely request for a certificate of immediate review.

On October 22, 2019, Tumlinson filed a petition for habeas corpus relief. Citing Ayala v. State , 262 Ga. 704, 705, 425 S.E.2d 282 (1993), he argued that he was being illegally detained because the trial court had flagrantly abused its discretion in denying his motion for bond. He argued that he had met his burden of showing that the trial court was authorized to release him on bond because he posed no significant risk of fleeing, threatening the community, committing another crime, or intimidating witnesses.² He further informed the habeas court that he had been denied a certificate of immediate review to seek an interlocutory appeal of the bond order. The respondent, through the District Attorney, denied the allegations of the complaint and asserted that Tumlinson was not entitled to habeas relief because he "had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies" and failed to "comply with the requirements of OCGA § 9-14-44."³ On April 13, 2020, the habeas court dismissed the petition without considering its merits or holding a hearing, stating that "habeas relief is unavailable on bail issues because they can be raised in the pending criminal case."

An order denying bond is interlocutory, and may be reviewed by an appellate court following the grant of a certificate of immediate review. Mullinax v. State , 271 Ga. 112 (1), 515 S.E.2d 839 (1999) ("The interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) are required to obtain review of an order denying or setting pre-trial bond." (citation omitted)). Additionally, in those cases where the petitioner lacks an adequate remedy in the trial court or appellate court, as when he is unable to seek an interlocutory appeal from an order denying bond because the trial court has denied a request for a certificate of immediate review, a habeas court has the authority to review the merits of a habeas petition in which the petitioner claims that he is being unlawfully detained based on the alleged illegal denial of bond. Compare Daker v. Warren , 288 Ga. 799, 800, 709 S.E.2d 222 (2011) ("The habeas court had the authority to review Daker's petition asserting that he was illegally denied bail." (citations omitted)), with Williams v. Reece , 288 Ga. 46, 47, 701 S.E.2d 188 (2010) (A petition for a writ of habeas corpus...