Chisholm v. Cofer

Supreme Court of Georgia

Chisholm v. Cofer

448 S.E.2d 369, 264 Ga. 512, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 813

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 3, 1994

DocketS94A1039

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 448 S.E.2d 369 (Chisholm v. Cofer) 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

Chisholm v. Cofer, 448 S.E.2d 369, 264 Ga. 512, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 813 (Ga. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

Chisholm presented a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and affidavit of indigency, asking the superior court to compel a magistrate to issue an arrest warrant against an individual for false swearing in a notary public application. He appeals from an order denying the filing of the writ of mandamus for failure to state a claim for relief. See OCGA § 9-15-2 (d).

A magistrate has discretion to determine whether or not probable cause exists for the issuance of an arrest warrant based on his own knowledge or on the information of others given to him under oath. OCGA § 17-4-40. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which will not issue to compel a public officer to perform a discretionary act, unless a gross abuse of such discretion has been shown. OCGA § 9-6-21 (a); Jersawitz v. Bodiford, 258 Ga. 829 (377 SE2d 502) (1989); *513 Clear Vision CATV v. Mayor of Jesup, 225 Ga. 757 (171 SE2d 505) (1969). The magistrate court exercised its discretion in refusing to issue the arrest warrant. No abuse of that discretion has been shown. Since the writ of mandamus does not lie, it was not error to deny its filing.

Decided October 3, 1994. Hugh S. Chisholm, Sr., pro se. Dunaway & Wallace, Roger W. Dunaway, Jr., for appellee. '

Cofer’s motion for frivolous appeal penalty is denied.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Per curiam.

Chisholm presented a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and affidavit of indigency, asking the superior court to compel a magistrate to issue an arrest warrant against an individual for false swearing in a notary public application. He appeals from an order denying the filing of the writ of mandamus for failure to state a claim for relief. See OCGA § 9-15-2 (d).

A magistrate has discretion to determine whether or not probable cause exists for the issuance of an arrest warrant based on his own knowledge or on the information of others given to him under oath. OCGA § 17-4-40. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which will not issue to compel a public officer to perform a discretionary act, unless a gross abuse of such discretion has been shown. OCGA § 9-6-21 (a); Jersawitz v. Bodiford, 258 Ga. 829 (377 SE2d 502) (1989); *513 Clear Vision CATV v. Mayor of Jesup, 225 Ga. 757 (171 SE2d 505) (1969). The magistrate court exercised its discretion in refusing to issue the arrest warrant. No abuse of that discretion has been shown. Since the writ of mandamus does not lie, it was not error to deny its filing.

Decided October 3, 1994. Hugh S. Chisholm, Sr., pro se. Dunaway & Wallace, Roger W. Dunaway, Jr., for appellee. '

Cofer’s motion for frivolous appeal penalty is denied.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 S.E.2d 369, 264 Ga. 512, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chisholm-v-cofer-ga-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack