Abebe v. State

820 S.E.2d 678, 304 Ga. 614
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 22, 2018
DocketS18A0894
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 820 S.E.2d 678 (Abebe v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abebe v. State, 820 S.E.2d 678, 304 Ga. 614 (Ga. 2018).

Opinion

Bethel, Justice.

*679**614Seble Wongel Abebe appeals from the denial of her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On March 18, 2015, she pled guilty in the Municipal Court for the City of Decatur to driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI") and was sentenced, inter alia, to 12 months of probation.1 On September 11, 2015, Abebe filed her habeas petition in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, alleging that her plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. On November 21, 2016, the superior court denied habeas relief, concluding that Abebe's sentence had already expired and that she had failed to make a showing of adverse collateral consequences.

**615A habeas petitioner who has completely served her misdemeanor sentence "must demonstrate that [s]he is suffering adverse collateral consequences flowing from [her] conviction. This is so because if adverse collateral consequences continue to plague the affected party, the matter has not become moot." Turner v. State , 284 Ga. 494, 495 (1), 668 S.E.2d 692 (2008) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds, Nazario v. State , 293 Ga. 480, 489 (2) (d), 746 S.E.2d 109 (2013). Cf. Atkins v. Hopper , 234 Ga. 330, 333 (2), 216 S.E.2d 89 (1975) (unnecessary for habeas petitioner to allege adverse collateral consequences of a felony conviction). Conversely, if the petitioner is released from any confinement imposed after filing her habeas petition and there are no adverse collateral consequences flowing from her misdemeanor conviction, the matter becomes moot. See Baker v. State , 240 Ga. 431, 432, 241 S.E.2d 187 (1978) (applying the doctrine of adverse collateral consequences in the context of an appeal from a misdemeanor conviction); see generally Johnson v. Ricketts , 233 Ga. 438, 211 S.E.2d 732 (1975) ; Raheem v. State , 333 Ga. App. 821, 821 n. 2, 777 S.E.2d 496 (2015).

Adverse collateral consequences must be demonstrated in the record. See Turner , 284 Ga. at 496 (1), 668 S.E.2d 692 (citing In the Interest of I.S. , 278 Ga. 859, 862, 607 S.E.2d 546 (2005) ). See also Baker , 240 Ga. at 432, 241 S.E.2d 187. In this case, Abebe has not alleged that she suffers any adverse collateral consequences stemming from her misdemeanor conviction that have continued after the expiration of her sentence. See Turner , 284 Ga. at 496, 497 (1), 668 S.E.2d 692 ; Baker , 240 Ga. at 432, 241 S.E.2d 187. Accordingly, this matter is moot, and the superior court correctly determined that Abebe was not entitled to habeas relief.2

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

HOSTETLER v. THE STATE
903 S.E.2d 117 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2024)
Oglesby v. Smith
S.D. Georgia, 2020
In THE INTEREST OF M.F., a Child
305 Ga. 820 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2019)
In re M. F.
828 S.E.2d 350 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2019)
HART v. BURFORD, JUDGE
304 Ga. 818 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2018)
Hart v. Burford
822 S.E.2d 237 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2018)
Abebe v. State
304 Ga. 614 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
820 S.E.2d 678, 304 Ga. 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abebe-v-state-ga-2018.